Loading...
587, Construct a tennis court, Correspondences City ol Rolling: fidio January 16, 2001 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Road 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 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 587 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-05 (first extension) Dear Mr. Shaikh: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since a time extension was approved by the Planning Commission for Zoning Case No. 587. Note that these approvals will expire on March 16, 2001 and unless you acquire building permits before then, under Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code you must refile the application based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinc ely, olanta Schwartz Principal Planner Cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect Printed on Recyr;led Pape' • Cuy ui/h March 27, 2000 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Road 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 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 587 NEW GUEST HOUSE, NEW DETACHED RECREATION ROOM, & RELOCATION OF EXISTING BARN 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) Dear Mr. Shaikh: This letter shall serve as official notification that a one year time extension was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on. March 21, 2000 for the subject case. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2000-05, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. Note that this approval will expire on March 16, 2001 and unless you acquire permits before then, under Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code you must refile based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, lirl--- Lola Ungar Planning Director Cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, AIA Co Printed on Recycled Paper. • RESOLUTION NO. 2000-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 99-6A AND 99-6B AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A RECREATION ROOM, AND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE, RECREATION ROOM, AND THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 28, Portuguese Bend . Road. (Lot .103-A-RH), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously . approved.. Conditional Use Permit to construct a guest house, a previously approved Conditional .Use Permit to construct a :recreation . room, and a previously approved Site ,:Plan ReView to permit the construction of a ,..guest, house, recreation room, and 4ithe relocation of an existing. . barn at an existing single family residence Section 2.. ' The. Commission considered this item at a' meeting on March 21,: 2000 at which time' information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary for the applicant to evaluate construction costs to determine project feasibility. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 9 of both Resolution Nos. 99- 6A and 99-6B, dated March 16, 1999, to read as follows: "A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution Nos. 99- 6A and 99-6B shall continue to be in full forceand effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DA • F ' C ' 2 1 00. ALL • N ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN f • • ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS °ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-05 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. 99-6A AND 99-6B AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. TO . CONSTRUCT A RECREATION ROOM, AND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE .PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION': OF A GUEST:. HOUSE, • RECREATION ROOM, .AND ' . THE RELOCATION. OF AN. EXISTING BARN AT AN EXISTING: SINGLESINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning.. Commission. on March 21, 2000 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 �. IC �vr✓ DEPUTY CITY CLERK •City 0/ leoffinf • 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 NOTIFICATION OF MEETING March 13, 2000 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587 Mr. Hussain Shaikh, 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH) Request for a one-year time extension. Dear Mr. Shaikh: Your request for a one-year time extension in Zoning Case No: 587 has been set for consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, March.21, 2000. 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 answer any questions. The staff report for this project will be forwarded to you by mail. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincere Lola M. Ungar Planning Director Cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect Printed on Recycled r;ipenr. • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 February 8, 2000 Chairman Roberts City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills California Regarding: Shaikh guest house, recreation room, barn relocation Zoning case 587, time extension Dear Chairman Roberts, FEB 0 s 2000 CITY OF ROLLING FALLS Mr. Shaikh is in the process of evaluating construction costs for the above -mentioned projects. At this time, he has not made a decision whether or not he will proceed with the proposed improvements. Please extend the site review approval an additional year. Find enclosed a check to the "City of Rolling Hills" for the $200 extension fee. Thank you, Criss Gunderson Architect • City ,,/ January 26, 2000 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Road 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 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 587 NEW GUEST HOUSE, NEW DETACHED RECREATION ROOM, & RELOCATION OF EXISTING BARN 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) Dear Mr. Shaikh: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 587. 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. Criss Gunderson, Architect ITO Printed or, Recycled Papei. • `12. eeliiq �re� CERTIFIED MAIL March 23, 1999 ,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 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 587, 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) RESOLUTION NOS. 99-6A AND 99-B. Dear Mr. Shaikh: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 99- 6A and 99-6B on March 16, 1999. The Commission approved the following requests by Resolution No. 99-6A: (1) a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guest house and (2) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the 800 square foot guest house and the relocation of an existing barn at an existing single family residence; and approved the following requests by Resolution No. 99-6B: (1) a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot detached recreation room and (2) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the 800 square foot detached recreation room at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 587. These actions, 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 NOS. 99-6A AND 99-6B, 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 each of the Resolutions 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. • i • 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 Resolutions 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, Lola Ungar Planning Di ctor cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NOS. 99-6A AND 99-6B (EXHIBITS "A" & "B") 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 Ltt Is (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. T Recorder's Use Only AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO. 587 ) §§ SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (2) 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. 587 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (2) I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that .the, foregoing is true and correct. L L L Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public, State of California County of Los Angeles ) On before me, 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 EXHIBITS "A" AND "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • Ex#iBir�i" RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE, AND THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-RH), Rolling Hills, requesting the following: (1) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a cabana, (2) a Conditional Use permit to construct a guest house, (3) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. During the hearing process, the cabana and the tennis court were withdrawn and the applications were revised requesting the . following: (1) a Conditional Use Permit to construct . an 800 square foot guest house, (2) a Conditional Use Permit .to construct an 800 square : foot detached recreation room, and (3) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the 800 square foot guest house, 800 square foot detached recreation room, and the relocation of an existing barn at an existing single family residence. The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached recreation room and Site Plan Review to permit construction of the new recreation room structure is addressed separately by Resolution No. 99-6B. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on November 17, 1998, December 15, 1998, January 19, 1999 and February 16, 1999, and at field trip visits on December 12, 1998 and 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 following concerns were expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners: The number of structures and uses requested, tennis court and cabana noise, the relocation of the barn, the existing trees, obstruction of views of the canyon, and the proximity of the structures to the existing horse trail across the lower portion of the property. Members of Caballeros were present at the field trips. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 1 OF 8 • • Section 3. On October 29, 1998, 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 October 31, 1998. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. 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 5. Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guest house under certain conditions. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot guest house at the central portion of the lot. 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 a guest house 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 uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house 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 guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5.74 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 2 OF 8 • • D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the guest house equals the 800 square foot maximum permitted and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities 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 there is an existing barn structure that will be relocated from the northwest side of an existing corral to the southeast side of the corral. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot guest house in accordance with the development plan dated February 22, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 587 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 of this resolution. Section 7. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 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 twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. The applicants request Site Plan Review for the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, and the relocation of an existing barn at an existing single family residence. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 6. The lot has a net square foot area of 215,727 square feet. The residence (4,415 sq.ft.), attached garage (1,200 sq.ft.), proposed guest house (800 sq.ft.), pool (560 sq.ft.), barn (450 sq.ft.), service yard (100 sq.ft.) will have 7,525 square feet which constitutes 3.5% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 20,565 square feet which equals 9.5% 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 beyond a hill that is away from the road so as to reduce RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 3 OF 8 • • • the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage proposed for the 13,525 square foot residential building pad is 45.7%, building pad coverage proposed for the 33,608 square foot guest house and barn pad will be 3.7%, and the total building pad coverage will be 16.0%. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house, and the relocation of the barn would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed new structures would be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, moved close to the hillside and away from the trail, and are a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structures would not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed 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 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 a minimum amount of grading is proposed , and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the residence, new structures, and existing neighboring residences. 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. The structures proposed will not be visible from Portuguese Bend Road. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the southeast side (rear) of this lot. G. 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. H. The proposed 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 Portuguese Bend Road for access. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 4 OF 8 • • I. 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 Planning 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 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 587 for a proposed construction of a guest house, and the relocation of an existing barn at an existing single family residence in accordance with the development plan dated February 22, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 587 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 of this resolution. Section 9. The Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 6 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 8 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.42.070(A) and 17.46.080(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to . the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 5 OF 8 • • F. The floor area of the guest house shall not exceed 800 square feet. G. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the guest house. H. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the guest house. I. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in any six month period. J. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. K. Except as otherwise provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-6B, residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 45.7%, the guest house and barn pad coverage shall not exceed 3.7%. The total building pad coverage shall not exceed 16.0%. L. Except as otherwise provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-6B, grading for the proposed project shall not exceed 75 cubic yards of cut soil and 75 cubic . yards of fill soil and shall not be allowed unless and until plans are ., approved and a permit is issued by the County. of. Los Angeles. M. Landscaping shall be provided to obscure the residence and guest house from neighboring residences to the maximum extent feasible. N. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the secondary building pad. O. 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. P. Two copies of a 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 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 RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 6 OF 8 • 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. Q. The property owner shall be required to conform to County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of new septic tanks. R. 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. S. 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. T. 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 shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. 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. V. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission, except for the 672 square foot infill residential development currently in the plan check process, and unless otherwise authorized in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-6B. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 7 OF 8 • W. The applicants 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. X. All conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals 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. 99-6A, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE, AND THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. 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. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-6A PAGE 8 OF 8 • RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B EX///13/7 '23." A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED RECREATION ROOM AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE NEW RECREATION ROOM STRUCTURE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-RH), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached recreation room and requesting Site Plan Review for the new structure. Applications were also filed to construct a guest house, hobby structure, tennis court and the relocation of a barn but, the hobby structure and tennis court were withdrawn during the hearing process. The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a guest house and Site Plan Review to construct the guest house, and the relocation of the barn is addressed separately by Resolution No. 99-6A. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications. on November 17,1998, December 15,1998, January 19,1999 and February 16, 1999, and at field trip visits on December 12, 1998 and 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 following concerns were expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners: The number of structures and uses requested, tennis court and cabana noise, the relocation of the barn, the existing trees, obstruction of views of the canyon, and the proximity of the structures to the existing horse trail across the lower portion of the property. Members of Caballeros were present at the field trips. Section 3. On October 29,1998, 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 October 31,1998. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 1 OF 7 • 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 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a detached recreation room under certain conditions. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot detached recreation room at the central portion of the lot. 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 a detached recreation room 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 uses in the community, and the area proposed for the detached recreation room would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a detached recreation room will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed detached recreation room will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the detached recreation room 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 detached recreation room will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 5.74 acre parcelof 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 detached recreation room does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities 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 there is an existing barn structure that will be relocated from the northwest side of an existing corral to the southeast side of the corral. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot detached recreation room in accordance with the development plan dated February 22, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 587 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 of this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 2 OF 7 • • Section 7. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 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 twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. The applicants request Site Plan Review for the construction of an 800 square foot detached recreation room. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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 sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Conditional Use Permit for a detached recreation room approved in Section 6 of this resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 215,727 square feet. The residence (4,415 sq.ft.), attached garage (1,200 sq.ft.), proposed guest house (800 sq.ft.), proposed detached recreation room (800 sq.ft.), pool (560 sq.ft.), barn (450 sq.ft.), service yard (100 sq.ft.) will have 8,325 square feet which constitutes 3.8% of the lot which iswithin the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,317 square feet which equals 17.9% 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 beyond a hill that is away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage proposed for the 13,525 square foot residential building pad is 45.7%, building pad coverage proposed for the 33,608 square . foot guest house, recreation room, barn pad will be 6.1%, and the total building pad coverage will be 17.7%. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house, detached recreation room, and the relocation of the barn would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed new structures would be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, moved close to the hillside and away from the trail, and are a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structures would not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed 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 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 a minimum amount of grading is proposed RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 3 OF 7 • • and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the residence, new structures, and existing neighboring residences. 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. The structures proposed will not be visible from Portuguese Bend Road. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the southeast side (rear) of this lot. G. 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. H. The proposed 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 Portuguese Bend Road for access. I. The project conforms • with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing _findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review application for: Zoriing Case No. 587 for a proposed construction of a detached recreation room at an existing single family residence in accordance with the development plan dated February 22, 1999 and marked Exhibit A. in Zoning Case No. 587 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 of this resolution. Section 9. The Conditional Use Permit for a detached recreation room approved in Section 6 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 8 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.42.070(A) and 17.46.080(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 4 OF 7 • • complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. F. The floor area of the detached recreation room shall not exceed 800 square feet. G. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the detached recreation room. H. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the detached recreation room. I. The recreation room shall not be used for guest or servant quarters. J. Renting of the detached recreation room is prohibited. K. Except as otherwise provided in Planning Commission Resolution -No. 99- 6A, residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 45.7%, the guest house, recreation room, and barn pad coverage shall not exceed 6.1%. The total building pad coverage shall not exceed 17.6%. L. Except as otherwise provided in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99- 6A, grading for the proposed project shall not exceed 75 cubic yards of cut soil and 75 cubic yards of fill soil and shall not be allowed unless and until plans are approved and a permit is issued by the County of Los Angeles. M. Landscaping shall be provided to obscure the residence, guest house and recreation room from neighboring residences to the maximum extent feasible. N. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the secondary building pad. O. 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. P. Two copies of a 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 submitted must comply with the RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 5 OF 7 • • 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. Q. The property owner shall be required to conform to County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of new septic tanks. R. 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. S. . An. Erosion Control Plan containing, the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code: shallbe prepared to. minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels., to control stormwater_pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.. T. 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 shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. 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. V. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission, except for the 672 square foot infill residential development currently in the plan check process. W. The applicants 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 6 OF 7 • • X. All conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals 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 A I EST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-6B entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED RECREATION ROOM AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE NEW RECREATION ROOM STRUCTURE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 587. 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, Witte and Chairman Roberts NOES: Commissioner Sommer ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. 11(4.A-ke-ry, MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-6B PAGE 7 OF 7 • 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 1730.030 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. ROLLING HILLS ZONING 77 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 a 'o N d I P 852 865`286 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) t to f, tfL(S: Street nd N 28 0 P.■., to and y)I.? Postage . Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee P,`Ciere 1o274 SA ` /f � //0 Return Receipt showing S to whom and Date Delivered u7 00 Return Receipt showing to whom. r Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Possg, arlar,V?4h;\ o Postmark 'or Dat4' i AU r11 U E 0 U- fn 0 1999 ��+�--�--- --T-, 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 mailpiece, or on the back it space does not permit. ■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the maiipiece below the article number. ■ The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. v0 3. Article Addressed to: a, d a. E 0 0 rn cn a O O a 2 0 0 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 28 Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills, CA Z.C. No. 587 5. Received By: (Print Name) 6. Sign- re. Add :e X PS Form A 1, December 1994 4a. Article N inter P 852 865 286 Road 4b. Service Type 90274 0 Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 COD 7. Date of Delive I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restricted Delivery Consult pt t f postmaster or fee 1] Certified 0 Insured 8. Addrefsee's Address (Only if requested and fee is paid) 102595-97-13-0179 Domestic Return Receipt Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. i • ei 61 R0/A JP, FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION January 21, 1999 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 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 86 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587, requests for the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed recreation room, and (3) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new guest house, a new recreation room and the relocation of an existing barn at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. Shaikh: 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 your property at 28 Portuguese Bend Road. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges and bearing walls; • Stake the limits of the building pad; • Stake the 35 foot side yard setback on the west side of the recreation room, and; • Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed building pad, areas to be graded and height of all proposed walls. 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. Sincerely, ‘144'61‘"...4.- LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect Printed on Recycled Paper. • 41i City ol £116 INCORPORATED JANUARV 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213)377-1521 FAX (213) 377.7288 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 211 x 411 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. • : N , / \ PLAN SECTION 01/19/99 12:45 FAX 213 687 2 A S A • 0002 January 19, 1999 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 W. DAVID MCKINNIE, III 3 EL CONCHo LANE ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Subject: Zoning Case #587 — 28 Portuguese Bend Road Dear Commissioners: 20g011NOD) JAN 1 9 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RV I have reviewed the revised application on the subject property. Since I must be out of town at the time of the scheduled review meeting on January 19, 1999, I wanted to offer my input. My wife, Kak, plans to attend the meeting. t, We are not in favor of the revised application but want to offer constructive thoughts. We believe homeowners should have the ability to develop their property consistent with the development (planning), architectural and aesthetic (natural terrain, noise) guidelines of Rolling Hills to maintain the atmosphere of the city. Our comments are the following: 1. The relocation of the barn appears to be acceptable. 2. We are concerned about the location of the guesthouse and would like for the property owner to consider alternative locations. Location of the guesthouse closer to the residence is more typical in Rolling Hills. Location in the canyon will produce additional noise and be an impairment to the aesthetics of the natural terrain. Additional lighting in the canyon would also be objectionable. 3. We are opposed to the proposed recreation room. Such a structure, in addition to the same objections for the guesthouse above (distance from the residence, potential noise and impairment of aesthetics), has the appearance of a second 01/19/99 12:45 FAX 213 68711102 A S A • CI003 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills January 19,1999 Page 2 of 2 guesthouse, which we believe should not be allowed. An addition of a recreation room to the main resident would be an appropriate addition. 4. Any additional development of the property should require the property owner to return the vegetation to its natural state. For many property owners in Rolling Hills, the terrain creates natural limitations to development. Such limitations are a fact for the subject property and must be recognized. Eased on the above, we strongly recommend the Commission deny the revised application and the property owner consider alternative plans for development. Sincerely yours, W. David McKinnie, IiI CliersatOrnolrnekinnielplanning comlttiAtiun 1.99 • December 11,1998 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills No.2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Commission Members: DEC 1 2 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry At the November 17,1998, meeting of the Planning Commission, I expressed my objections and concerns over the proposed addition of a game court complex at 28 Portuguese Bend Road, property owned by Mr. Hussain Shaikh. Since it was impossible to be certain of the exact location and scope of the complex from the minimal site plan available, I stated my concerns only and asked that a site review be scheduled at a time when I could attend. The Commission chose a date of December 12,1998, which was acceptable. In an effort at fairness, I have withheld any further objections until the proposed addition was staked. This was just done, thus the date of my letter. Upon seeing the location as staked, I now have confirmation of my original concern for the placement of a tennis court at this location. I offer the following information for your consideration. The existing residence as allowed by a prior commission is already much too close to the adjacent property. Conversation on the pool deck and within the house, if windows, etc. are open, is totally audible from my patio and surrounding property. Furthermore, this canyon acts like an echo chamber. I am able to hear conversation, music, etc. from the back of several houses on the other side of the canyon when I am in the bedrooms of my home if the windows are open. I am thus convinced that the noise from a tennis court which is positioned below my home would be very audible and intrusive within the house, especially the bedroom area. While it is not my intent to infringe on someone else's right to control his own space, a prime characteristic of our community is its quiet and private nature within such a crowded metropolitan area. I feel we are obligated to protect this for current and future residents. At this time, I would like to state my objection to the addition of a tennis court/recreation complex as shown and positioned and request that the Commission review the application further. Additionally, I have to be out of town on business as of December 13th, and will not be able to attend the December 14th meeting. At this time, I request that unless the Commission determines that the application be denied, that the discussion be postponed until after Christmas at which time I will be available to attend. This trip was planned prior to the Commission's review and as it involves my teaching, I am unable to change it at this time. I respectfully submit that since it is my property that is most closely effected by this application, the Commission positively consider my request to be present at all meetings. Should my request be denied, please notify me immediately as I will be pleased to arrange for legal representation in my absence. ' • • I thank you for your consideration. It has been a pleasure working with you in the past and I anticipate the same at this time. Sincerely yours, Y1�( A. • December 9, 1998 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills Incorporated 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • THEEIVE DEC 1 0 1998 CITY OF !ROLLING HILLS Subject: Zoning Case No. 587, Proposed Construction of a new Cabana Structure. Guest house, tennis court, hobby structure and relocate of an existing barn at 28 Portuguese Bend Road. (Lot 103-A-RH). Dear Planning Commission, I understand that members of the Planning Commission will visit the subject site this Saturday, December 12, 1998, to review this zoning case. My wife Mabel K. Heckerman and I request that members of the Commission visit our home at 5 El Concho Lane and view the site from the patio behind our house and our parking lot. You will note that the proposed tennis court will impact our views from our living room, family room, kitchen, den and master bedroom. (All of the rooms on the North side of the house.) We vigorously object to this proposed construction. It will devalue our property from a noise and view standpoint. Since my wife and I will both be out of town this weekend we authorize our neighbor Mr. David McKinnie who will attend the meetings to speak on our behalf. Your cooperation will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, (5F: jj-/e, Fred R. Heckerman, Sr. cc: Mr. David McKinnie emg/FRH114.doc/ltrs • • Cio R0f14 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION Nover'ii ber 20, 1998 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 86 Saddleback Road 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587, requests for the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. Shaikh: 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, December 12, 1998. The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 7:30 AM at 91 Crest Road East, go to 6 Middleridge Lane South and then proceed to your property. Do not expect the Commission at 7:30 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 9:00 AM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges and bearing walls; • Stake the limits of the building pad; • Stake the 35 foot side yard setback on the west side of the recreational game court complex,and; • Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed building pads, areas to be graded and height of all proposed walls. 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. Sincerely, t , PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect Printed on Recycled Paper. • Ci4 o Rotting INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDEI4NES 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. • • • • • • • • • • • SECTION at PLAN 4 November 11, 1998 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills Incorporated 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 f]Ug{1VE NOV 1 2 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Subject: Zoning Case No. 587, Proposed Construction of a new Cabana Structure. Guest house, tennis court, hobby structure and relocate of an existing barn at 28 Portuguese Bend Road. (Lot 103-A-RH). Dear Planning Commission, I reviewed the subject application and plans at City Hall this morning. My wife Mable and I strongly object to approval of all of the above items. The barn is properly located where it now sits. We object to all of the other items as they will devalue our property, create noise and impair our view. We live in Rolling Hills because the city has restrictive covenants that do not allow this kind of construction. The project should be denied. Thank you for consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Fred R. Heckerman FRH/emg/c: frh 101. doc/ltrs '74 Mabel K. Heckerman • Cry ofi? lli,.s STATUS OF APPLICATION November 5,1998 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 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 86 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587, requests for the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and the construction of a newtennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills. Dear Mr. Shaikh: 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. 587 have been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, November 17, 1998. 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, November 13,1998. We will forward a copy to you. Please call me when you receive this letter if you have any questions at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect ft Printed on Recycled Paper. • GEORGE L. GRAZIADIO Imperial Bank Building P. O. Box 92991 Los Angeles, California 90009 (310) 641-2546 November 5, 1998 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA .90274 Re: Zoning Case 587 To Whom It May Concern: MENLIiT NOV 0 91998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We have looked at the application and the applicants' intentions to build a cabana, tennis court, guest house structure, new hobby structure so stated, relocating an existing barn, etc. on the property at #28 Portuguese Bend Road (lot 103-A-RH). We are concerned that, these additions to the property extending down towards the Georgeff Canyon would be an intrusion to the natural beauty and scenery that this area has always represented to us as residents for the past 25 years. It is our understanding that previous owners of the subject property had petitioned the City for a similar construction and invasion of the landscape and were declined by the City. We, therefore, are not in favor of this plan as indicated and trust that the City will reject the request by this property owner. cerely, r. and Mrs. George L. Graziadio #11 Wagon Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 GLG/mja • November 2, 1998 Dear Planning Commission: •-st " Li NOV 0 4 1998 WV OF ROLLING MO We are writing in regard to the proposed Zoning Case No. 587, Shaikh property, 28 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. We are strongly opposed to the construction of any playing court, tennis court or cabana in the beautiful Georgeff Canyon area. This has always been one of the city's most protected riding trails which connects to the Caballeros riding ring as well as to many other trail systems including the Jean Hahn Loop. We are opposed to this project for several reasons: 1. First and foremost — the natural scenery and flavor of the area would be greatly altered. 2. The noise of a tennis court is truly obnoxious and would be disruptive to horses on the trails, not to mention all the surrounding homes lining the canyon. 3. Any large planting that might possibly screen a tennis court would have to be so large that it would impair views in the area, and then have a negative effect on property values. 4. The previous owners of this property had previously tried to build a playing court and were turned down by our city; therefore there is no reason to reconsider disrupting the landscape with something so incongruous to our city's laws on preserving natural views, noise codes, and Caballeros needs. Thank you for reviewing our concerns. We hope you will look at this proposal very thoroughly as it not only affects over 50 families on Georgeff Canyon itself, but also our whole population of Rolling Hills that love to walk and ride our trails. Respectfully yours, , Kak and David McKinnie 3 El Concho Lane Rolling Hills 310-541-5244 • Cuy o`R0M October 29, 1998 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 86 Saddleback Road 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 SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR APPLICANT'S CONCURRENCE ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE. CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). Dear Mr. Shaikh: On October 29, 1998, 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 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 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. LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect October 29, 1998 Mr. Hussain Shaikh 86 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • C1iy o/ RO/A,ZZ �r�r • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 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-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). 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: Mitigation 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 practicesso that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 3. The property owner shall be required to conform with County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. 4. 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. • • PAGE 2 MITIGATION MEASURES ZONING CASE NO. 587 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) PAGE 2 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) Date Signature Applicant(s) Date Signature Applicant(s) (Print) If no response is received within 15 days, the Environmental Determination requires that these changes/conditions be included in project. LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR Date • • COPY PAGE 2 MITIGATION MEASURES ZONING CASE NO. 587 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) PAGE 2 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) Date Signature Applicant(s) Date Signature Applicant(s) (Print) If no response is received within 15 days, the Environmental Determination requires that these changes/conditions beincluded in project. LOLA UNGAR, F&ANNING DIRECTOR Date • Ci1y `l2lf.•..9 Jd,�ff • NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 The applicant is requesting the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road.. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 587 to be at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA and to be implemented by Mr. Hussain Shaikh. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a cabana, a guest house, a hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and construction of 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 prepares -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: October 29, 1998 By: Lola Ungar, Plan n Director Printed on Recycled Paper. • Ca, opeo Pf..s Jh/i APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE APPLICATION NO: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: LOCATION OF PROJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT: • 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 ZONING CASE NO. 587 MR. HUSSAIN SHAIKH 86 SADDLEBACK ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) The applicant is requesting the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO.: 7569-007-008 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: ZONING CASE NO. 587 RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. Same. Single family residential. I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper • • LOCATION MAP: Attached. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-2 • • (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel 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 cabana, a guest house, a hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and 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 5.039 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, swimming pool, barn and corral. 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. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-3 wooded. The same native birds and 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 X X X 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. 587 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: October 29, 1998 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 587 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. 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. 587 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): El I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 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)? El ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ 0 0 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 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 0 housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 ❑ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 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 hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration 0 0 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 0 0 water movements? 0 El p 0 0 p p p ❑x p p El 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 CI El ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 0 0 El 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? 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 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 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 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? 0 ❑ 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 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 ❑ 0 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 trees)? 0 E p 0 El CI El 0 0 O a O El El 0 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-9 • • c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ p ❑ d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 VI I I. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 ❑ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 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? El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 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 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 .0 Xl. 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? O 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0 0 p El 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o o o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ 0 the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑x EJ ❑x El El El 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑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 California 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 accessory structures and 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 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 !V. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of structures, the introduction of impervious surface materials ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-13 • • and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development 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. c. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. As septic tank leach field effluent percolate into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream may occur. The impact generated from the addition of three accessory structures, a tennis court, and the relocation of a barn however, will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 3. The property owner shall be required to conform with County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of three accessory structures and 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, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed by 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 endangered species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, 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 Rancho 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 three accessory buildings and 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 three accessory buildings and a tennis court. But after construction, noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS d. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. The impact generated from the addition of three accessory structures and a tennis court, however, will be less than significant. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-14 • • Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and the Community Association. Buildings are limited to one story in height. 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. Mitigation Measures 4. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-15 • • City o/ /eJi4 October 29, 1998 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: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). Dear Angel: Enclosed find a Notice of Intent to file a Negative Declaration and a Notice of Public Hearing regarding Zoning Case No. 587, a request to construct a cabana, a guest house, a hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road 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 ifs Panted on Recycled Paper. PAY. CITY OF ROLLING SLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 00274 %1t ,31 ° .. r . e1"+Fti1Pi1 T3i ' LI%3Ma A l°"', =n UNION BANKOFCALI NIA NUMBER Palos Verdes Center #0 507 Silver Spur Road Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 16-49/1220 12171 **********************Twenty -Five and 00/100 *********************** TO THE ORDER OF Los Angeles County Clerk Environmental Filings De. 12400 E Imperial Hwy #11 Norwalk, CA 90650 DATE Oct 28 98 AMOUNT $25.00 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE tillk41101.1.tAt i"ce1t1^i.3�CiYTa he 7imIRt.re:t i%'ii" '� ` v6.9° ,."we:.e :vs€,'::rl'eit II■0L2L7LII' 1:L22000496i:0732002L750 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Los Angeles County Clerk 160 INVOICE NO Fees 102898 NUMBER Oct 28 98 GROSS AMT DISCOUNT NET 25.00 0.00 25.00 12171 • Cites Ol 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 October 29, 1998 Dr. Ira Toibin Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District 3801 Via La Selva Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). 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 November 30, 1998. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing Printed on Recycled Paper • Ciy 0/ RJ/L4 October 29, 1998 Mr. Douglas Prichard, City Manager City of Rolling Hills Estates 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills 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. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). Dear Mr. Pric 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 November 30, 1998. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing Printed en Recycled Paper. • ��� eityRO in� ��� Q� � � 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 October 29, 1998 Mr. Les Evans, City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). Dear Mr. 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 November 30, 1998. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing Pnnted on Recycled Paper. • Cay or /2ofILi flit/6 October 29, 1998 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 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ZONING CASE NO. 587 REQUEST FOR (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED CABANA, (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE, (3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED TENNIS COURT, AND (4) SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CABANA STRUCTURE, A NEW GUEST HOUSE STRUCTURE, A NEW HOBBY STRUCTURE, THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING BARN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRES GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH). 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 November 30, 1998. Feel free to contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR " PLANNING DIRECTOR ENCLOSURE: Negative Declaration Notice of Public Hearing s. Printed on Recycled Pap i. •City 0/ leolti.9. • NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 The applicant is requesting the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road.. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 587 to be at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA and to be implemented by Mr. Hussain Shaikh. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a cabana, a guest house, a hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and construction of 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 prepares -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: October 29, 1998 By: Lola Ungar, Plan n Director Printed on Recycled Paper • Cu `l2 PlinS Jh/h • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 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-mail: cityofrh@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, November 17, 1998, 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. 587, requests for the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 28 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 103-A-RH), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(2,5, and 7) - Conditional Use Permits required for a cabana, guest house, and tennis court, and Section 17.46.010 - Site Plan Review required for new structures and grading. 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 October 31, 1998. Printed on Recycled Paper. • f,4r• 1 1 1 1 ,,, • •' •1 `• til�y rot 06 p0 \ Ae*\� \ , t 6 0Ac to —A, see \ • • 1 1 \\ 4— 1 s 1 1 o\ 4442Ac �" 4 11 ' 1 \ \ • \ ti 102 6.377 Ac- N sm' _J 1 i GU' I Y :s4 91 20/0 C. 104.8 l5.1 p.►D ' �.`P��_ SyrOa 1 \\a3o 244,459,, j log \ t r I r e\ I' a*. I — :-•"..� 609Ac. 1/? IL - <. j 1057 \\ 11'1 • <4' 112 \ 4420.4444/3* 3\7."-rnr_t \ -10 I I /tt f.00JI 1-e • 2 "-7 Ii I I 16. , �-- - , �\ , It \1• /t/ • 11 `J'� scO/,1 l . I„ `,�o�' + 1111 1 • i if- ' `•�1. 1 ,,-1 ; //f r I L t" .. I / / 41t•' -": 1 1 t,„ 4 at 1 1� n I. 1 11 1 /�W •,3:�T�'�' �'i %l3';1 "' !F- ei I 1 \ WI fF' C I 1 I wl .r,OfirA 1 i2 A-.. /i' Opnd' 1249,0 . ,s1 / , 9/ o% Ile A +. >a•' sin Shaikh Huss Bend 1111.E Mr. p,`! T g Portuguese AoORE� • 1 4 ,25 / A. ;t{ pORIUGAASS GIP g-F .441 \\ 89 C"q sit r • • 90 \ 6. • A•t • • i� �5- A $ C Is3 ♦-- = ^� 7 t \ \ /I�3 A, 4 h .9o,AcZ 1 \ solio CAS NO' a 1, pills• ill • 4.44444 J✓ 5' 1, oe• "�;� 4. ,2�Ow• O// \\ �- •• i. 2/ tan. 20 2/ 25 D AA N yr 12 22 Ae 3.1.-A I 34•C 2,pOAt r 131111• r' r- r 1 ' a .,. -j- C RN,/ .WSJ- APPLICATION NO: • City Jhif, APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE • 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 ZONING CASE NO. 587 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: MR. HUSSAIN SHAIKH 86 SADDLEBACK ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 LOCATION OF PROJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT: 28 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 103-A-RH) The applicant is requesting the following: (1) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed cabana, (2) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (3) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (4) Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a new cabana structure, a new guest house structure, a new hobby structure, the relocation of an existing barn, and a new tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO.: 7569-007-008 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • LOCATION MAP: Attached. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-2 • • (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel 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 cabana, a guest house, a hobby structure, relocation of the existing barn, and 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 5.039 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, swimming pool, barn and corral. 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. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-3 wooded. The same native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: Yes No N/A City of Rolling Hills General Plan X Applicable Specific Plan X City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance X South Coast Air Quality Management Plan X Congestion Management Plan X Regional Comprehensive Plan X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Historical Report Hydrology Report Archaeological Report Soils Report Paleontological Study Traffic Study Line of Sight Exhibits Noise Study Visual Analysis Biological Study Slope Map Native. Vegetation Fiscal Impact Analysis Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Air Quality Report Public Services/ Hazardous Materials/Waste Infrastructure Report ZONING CASE NO. 587 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: October 29, 1998 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 587 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. 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. 587 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): El I. 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 0 El 0 0 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 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)? 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 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) b) c) d) e) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 9) h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Subsidence of the land? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 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 water movements? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 El El 0 0 El p El 0 Ei 0 0 0 No Impact 0 ❑x ❑x O p p O p El 0 0 0 0 0 ❑x ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 0 0 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? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 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 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 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? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 0 0 0 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ 0 trees)? 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-9 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 ❑x ❑ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 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? O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 Xl. 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? o o ❑ o o o o ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 ❑ 0 O p p 0 ZONING CASE NO. 587 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 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 Ei e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 c) Create light or glare? 0 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 ❑ ❑x c) Affect historical resources? 0 0 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 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 ❑ regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 0 El 0 El 0 ❑x 0 ❑x CI El 0 ID 0 0 0 ❑x ❑x El El ❑x ZONING CASE NO. 587 I-11 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? 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. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ 0 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and state where they are available for review. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 accessory structures and 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 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 !V. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of structures, the introduction of impervious surface materials ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-13 • • and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development 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. c. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. As septic tank leach field effluent percolate into the watershed, some discharge into surface waters downstream may occur. The impact generated from the addition of three accessory structures, a tennis court, and the relocation of a barn however, will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 3. The property owner shall be required to conform with County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of three accessory structures and 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, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed by 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 endangered species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, 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 Rancho 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 three accessory buildings and 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 three accessory buildings and a tennis court. But after construction, noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS d. The applicants propose a septic tank system for the project. The impact generated from the addition of three accessory structures and a tennis court, however, will be less than significant. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-14 • • Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Residential building materials are carefully regulated by the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance and the Community Association. Buildings are limited to one story in height. 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. Mitigation Measures 4. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 587 1-15