Loading...
595, Construct sport court, Staff Reports• • CityO� /?o//ini _LL 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 Agenda Item No.: 7-A Mtg. Date: 11/22/99 DATE: NOVEMBER 22,1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 872: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South. BACKGROUND 1. The attached resolution was requested by the City Council at their regular meeting on November 8, 1999 to grant approval for a conditional use permit for the construction of a tennis court at an existing single family residence. The following conditions of Section 8 of Resolution No. 872 were requested to be added to the resolution by the City Council and are highlighted in bold letters in the draft resolution (Condition AP was and shall remain highlighted in bold letters): "J. The surface of the sports court shall not exceed 2,850 square feet in area. The location of the sports court shall be depicted on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, except that (i) the east side of the sports court shall be moved one and a half (1-1/2) feet easterly and the west side of the sports court shall be moved one and a half (1-1/2) feet westerly so that the width of the court is increased from 35 feet to 38 feet, and (ii) the north side of the sports court shall be moved five (5) feet southerly so that the length of the court is reduced from 80 feet to 75 feet. "N. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems as well as sports court runoff, and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the bottom of the canyon at the rear or west of the lot. Printed on Recycled Paper. P "S. Prior to construction of the sports court, irrigation and approved landscaping at the south end of the sports court shall be planted. "W. Landscaping shall be designed and extended from the sports court perimeter using mature trees and shrubs to obscure the sports court and retaining wall when viewed from across the canyon at the west. "X. Landscaping shall be designed and extended north of the sports court to incorporate the modification of any existing/remaining asphalt areas. "Y. Landscaping at the south end of the sports court shall also obscure the basketball hoop when extended to a maximum height of 12 feet 8 inches. "AE. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the bottom of the canyon at the west." Staff also included the following conditions highlighted in bold letters in the draft resolution for further clarification: "V. The height of the mature Carolina Laurel Cherry and California pepper trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height when planted, as measured from the ground, and the Xylosma shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height when planted, as measured from the ground. "Z. A maximum of one extendable and retractable basketball hoop shall be permitted at the south end of the sports court; the basketball standard shall be limited to a maximum height of 8 feet when retracted; and the basketball backboard shall be constructed of a transparent material with the exception of any standard basketball backboard markings." 2. A letter from Mr. Ken Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane, recommending certain conditions is also attached. We have also attached our response to Mr. Johnson's letter. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 872. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 872 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught with respect to real property located at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sports court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1999, June 15, 1999, July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 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: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Section 3. On September 21, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the application by Resolution No. 99-13 in Zoning Case No. 595. Section 4. On September 21, 1999, an appeal to the City Council was filed by adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Road South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills. Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on October 11,1999, October 25, 1999, and November 8, 1999, and at a field trip visit on October 27, 1999. The applicants and appellants 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 City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and appellants were in attendance at the hearings. The following concerns were expressed by the Council and nearby property owners: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping of the sports court, viewscapes of neighboring homeowners, slope stability, canyon RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 1 OF 8 • • DRAFT development, noise, and the feasibility of a proposed stable and corral. The appeal was denied by the City Council on November 8, 1999. Section 6. A mitigated Negative Declaration for the original project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's finding that the project as modified subsequently and as presented by this application is within the scope of the previously adopted Negative Declaration. The City Council further finds that the project as modified will not have any new or substantially greater environmental impacts than considered in the original Negative Declaration. Section 7. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a sports court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills City Council. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sports court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the sports court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad. Based on permits and records regarding the grading for the second pad, the City Council finds that the area for the proposed sports court has been legally graded and compacted. B. The site of the proposed sports court is located 100 feet from the base of a canyon and on an area of the applicants' property that currently contains an asphalt parking area. Based on the distance from the bottom of the canyon and the existence of the flat area on which the sports court will be located, the application is found to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance requirement of not being located on the side or bottom of a canyon. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 2,850 square foot sports court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed sports court will be modest in size, constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will replace an existing asphalt parking area, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the sports court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 2 OF 8 • • DRAFT and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.31 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. E. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed a maximum graded area of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage and do not propose to grade the sports court area. F. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. G. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral, established as feasible on the project site, is proposed for the project. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 595 for a proposed 2,850 square foot sports court, as shown on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 3 OF 8 • DRAFT D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 6, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with recreation court limitations. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,716 square feet or 11.4% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 18.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,416 square feet or 32.3%, coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad shall not exceed 3,300 square feet or 37.2%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.8%. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,356 square feet or 18.0%. J. The surface of the sports court shall not exceed 2,850 square feet in area. The location of the sports court shall be depicted on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, except that (i) the east side of the sports court shall be moved one and a half (1-1/2) feet easterly and the west side of the sports court shall be moved one and a half (1-1/2) feet westerly so that the width of the court is increased from 35 feet to 38 feet, and (ii) the north side of the sports court shall be moved five (5) feet southerly so that the length of the court is reduced from 80 feet to 75 feet. K. Balanced cut and fill shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not be required for the project but, any soil preparation for the sports court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems as well as sports court runoff, and that all drainage from the site RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 4 OF 8 DRAFT shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the bottom of the canyon at the rear or west of the lot. O. Sports court lighting shall not be permitted. P. The sports court shall be screened with 8 foot high fencing on all four sides. Q. The landscape plan shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. R. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. S. Prior to construction of the sports court, irrigation and approved landscaping at the south end of the sports court shall be planted. T. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court. U. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs using Carolina Laurel Cherry and California pepper and Xylosma, as described on the preliminary landscape plan. V. The height of the mature Carolina Laurel Cherry and California pepper trees shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height when planted, as measured from the RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 5 OF 8 DRAFT ground, and the Xylosma shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 feet in height when planted, as measured from the ground. W . Landscaping shall be designed and extended from the sports court perimeter using mature trees and shrubs to obscure the sports court and retaining wall when viewed from across the canyon at the west. X. Landscaping shall be designed and extended north of the sports court to incorporate the modification of any existing/remaining asphalt areas. Y. Landscaping at the south end of the sports court shall also obscure the basketball hoop when extended to a maximum height of 12 feet 8 inches. Z. A maximum of one extendable and retractable basketball hoop shall be permitted at the south end of the sports court; the basketball standard shall be limited to a maximum height of 8 feet when retracted; and the basketball backboard shall be constructed of a transparent material with the exception of any standard basketball backboard markings. AA. Noise from sports court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. AB. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AC. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AD. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the bottom of the canyon at the west. AF. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 6 OF 8 DRAFT AG. During construction, 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. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. AI. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. AJ. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. AK. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AL. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. AM. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. AN. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AO. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 7 OF 8 • • DRAFT AP. Any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AQ. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. AR. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a drainage, building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999. THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER, MAYOR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 872 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 22, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 872 PAGE 8 OF 8 • • Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 November 18,1999 Re: Zoning Case No. 595 Mr. Craig R. Nealis City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 NOVIAEC]rVE 1 8 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FAv Dear Craig, Thank you for meeting with me on November 10th to review the sequence of events that occurred at the City Council meeting November 8, 1999. I am a Tittle bit unclear on all of the issues and proposed changes to the application that was discussed at the meeting. So that I can better understand the impact of what is being proposed, would you please enlighten me on the following: LANDSCAPE PLAN It is my understanding that a new landscape plan will be submitted that includes: Enhanced planting materials on the Southwest end of the proposed court to be installed prior to construction. A. Screening aF the driveway leading down to the lower pad will be included the new plan. B. Asphalt on the lower pad will be removed. Questions 1. Are the above assumptions correct? 2. Is Julie Heinsheimer still the Landscape Architect on this project and will she be developing the new plan? 3. What is the minimum height the planting materials must reach on the Southwest end of the proposed court before construction can begin? (In previous discussions and site reviews, it is estimated that a height of 20' would screen the proposed court and not block the canyon view beyond the pad from our home.) • Page 2 November 18, 1999 4. What is the estimated time for the planting materials to fully screen the proposed court from our view? 5. VW!I the landscape bond be in place until full screening is achieved? 6. Does the Landscape Committee review and approve the proposed new plan for compliance? 7. Do the original specificationsfix planting materials in Julie Heinsheimer's 6-14-99 letter to the Planning Commission still apply to the balance of the planting materials surrounding the proposed court? SPORTS COURT SPECIFICATIONS 1. What is the new size and proposed location of the sports court? 2. The basketball goal will be limited to one on the southwest end of the proposed court and would consist of a clear backboard on a telescopic pole that is lowered to a height of eight feet when not in use. Is this correct? 3. "The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green open work polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base." Is this specification still in the proposed plan and being made part of the conditions? CURRENT RESOLUTION 99-13 1. Are any variances being granted in this case? 2. Section 6-R states that Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court." The views that have been discussed at all prior meetings is our view of the canyon just beyond the existing pad. In order for this to be accomplished, there would need to be a dear understanding on the maintenance requirements to maintain this view. Is the amended resolution going to be more specific on the view that has been discussed and the maintenance obligations to preserve it? 3. Would the working drawings that is submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review include the disclosure of the • • • Page 3 November 18, 1999 geologic conditions of the pad including the landslide, current slope angles and the seepage pit location? Given the testimony on this subject from Keith Ehlert's office at the last meeting. I assume someone with the appropriate technical expertise is going to be reviewing these issues. Craig please understand I am not suggesting or requiring changes but only seeking clarification of the decisions that have been rendered by the Planning Commission and upheld by the City Council. We find ourselves in this situation as a result of past miscommunications and misunderstandings. 1 think we have put forth sufficient testimony and evidence on this subject through the past six public meetings to adequately express our feeling on the issues in this case and the potential significant impact it would have on our property. I am just trying to understand exactly what is being proposed by the applicant and required by the city in this mater. Thank you for attention to this matter. C Mr. John Resich • • 0/ Rolling JUL THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Mayor Pro Tem FRANK E. HILL Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember JODY MURDOCK. Councilmember November 19,1999 Mr. Ken Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: 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 Thank you for your correspondence dated November 18,1999 regarding Zoning Case No. 595. This letter shall serve as a response to the questions you have posed in your correspondence. A new landscape plan will be required to be submitted by the applicant. All planting material and irrigation on the southwest end of the proposed sports court will be required to be installed prior to construction of the court. We have included this condition in the draft resolution that will be presented to the City Council on November 22' There has not been any direction from the City Council to provide screening of the driveway leading down to the lower pad. However, landscaping of the area currently occupied by asphalt on the lower pad is addressed in the draft resolution. Landscape screening of the retaining wall, from the west, is also addressed in the draft resolution. We do not know who the applicant will select as their landscape architect for this project. We have determined in the draft resolution that the minimum height of the planting will be 5 feet for the Xylosma material and 12 feet for the Carolina Laurel Cherry and California Pepper Trees to screen the court from the direction of your property. These measurements are defined in the draft resolution as being from the ground to the top of the planting material at the time of installation. The applicant will be required to submit a revised landscape plan to reflect these conditions. Landscaping bonds are held for two years following installation of the landscaping material. As far as the Landscape Committee review, you should direct that question to the Community Association. The Landscape Committee is a function of the Rolling Hills Community Association. 61/Pnnted on Recycled Rene'. • • Page 2. November 19,1999 You also ask whether or not the landscape plan dated 6/14/99 will still apply to the balance of the planting materials. Again, a new landscape plan in compliance with the conditions of approval will be required to be submitted. That new plan will be reviewed by appropriate staff members. The size of the new sports court is 2,850 sq. ft. The dimensions of the court have been slightly modified to achieve this size. The location and the changes in dimension of the court are described in the draft resolution. Regarding the height of the basketball goal, we have indicated in the draft resolution that the single permitted basketball goal must be able to be lowered to a height of 8 feet when not in use. Regarding the surface of the sports court, the applicant has elected to not pursue the previously identified playing court surface. Further, the playing court surface was not addressed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Therefore, the draft resolution is silent on this subject. There are no variances being granted in this case as none are required. The language that "landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as to not obstruct the view of neighboring properties, but, to obscure the sports court," has not been changed in the draft resolution. We have not received direction from the City Council to amend this provision of the resolution. Maintenance of the landscaping has not been addressed beyond the language in the original resolution. Identical language is contained in the draft resolution that will be considered by the City Council. Drawings that will be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety will be reviewed in terms of drainage and appropriate construction of the proposed sports court. You are free to submit any issues you would like to the County to consider as a private resident expressing concern over this subject. You should contact the County directly to express those concerns. We hope this letter answers the questions you have posed. Please remember, you are free to suggest any changes to the language in the resolution that will be considered by the City Council. Should you wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 11/18/99johnson.ltr cc: City Council Lola Ungar, Planning Director City Attorney 110 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 MEMORANDUM TO: LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO: ZONING CASE NO. 595 AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. MR. AND MRS. DON SLAUGHT, 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH. DATE: NOVEMBER 9,1999 As you know, the City Council requested that a resolution be prepared denying the above referenced appeal and approving this Zoning Case. In discussing this with Mike Jenkins, Mike will be reviewing your resolution for completeness. He requests that all of the arguments that have been presented by John Resich be refuted with findings of the City Council and that all of the findings relative to the support of this application be enumerated, in detail, in the draft resolution. Further, the resolution should include: • That the court will be limited to 2850 sq. ft. • That it will be shortened 5 feet in a southerly direction. • That the planting and irrigation on the south end of the court shall be installed prior to construction. • That landscaping shall include an extension of material that will cover the retaining wall when viewed from the (west) opposite side of the canyon and that the landscaping plan be modified to include this requirement. • That the drainage plan will be modified and must be submitted to the City and County for approval to carry the water to the bottom of the canyon. This will include any water from any irrigation systems as well as court runoff. -1- Printed on Recycled Paper. • • ■ That the existing asphalt be modified and that the area north of the court be landscaped and that these landscaping improvement be included on the plan. ■ That any basketball hoop be limited to one hoop for the entire sports court and that it shall be located at the south end and that it be a telescoping model or detracting model to allow it to be under 8 feet in height when not in use. ■ That the landscaping will cover the basketball hoop which is at a reported 12'8" in height. CRN:mlk 11/09/99ungar.mem -2- DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • City opeottiny fidio 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 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 11/8/99 NOVEMBER 8,1999 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 595; AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248- B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South. BACKGROUND 1. The City Council viewed a silhouette of the proposed project on October 27, 1999 at the proposed site and from the Johnson property at 29 Middleridge Lane South. 2. An appeal regarding Zoning Case No. 595 was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a public hearing has been set for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. 3. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-13 on September 21, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at an existing single family residence. The Commission and adjacent property owners expressed concerns regarding Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. The vote was 3-2 with Commissioners Roberts and Sommer voting against the project. Supporting documents are attached to this staff report. The applicants presented topographic, landscape, viewscape, and cut -away landscape and hillside plans; building and grading permits approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Foreman; a letter providing grading history from a former owner, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane; a letter from Mr. John Slaught, applicant's father; and a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, stating that the construction of a sports court pad will reduce the risk ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 OF 6 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 1 of future landslide movement by improving drainage. Mr. John Slaught and Landscape Consultant Rick Hilliard spoke in support of the project. Copies of the proposed plan submitted by the applicants were endorsed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South. Mr. John Resich, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, photographs and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, existing slope grades, the 1981 grading approvals, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of the property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, real estate values, noise, and the landscape screening and views from his clients' residence of the proposed sports court. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson also spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more landscaping, and more mature California pepper trees be added to the landscape plan. 4. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 5. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 6. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 7. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 8. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 9. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 10. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 11. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern • • driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 12. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with. the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the appeal and take public testimony. PORTS"COU`F T l EQUES1 RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line `..:EXISTING The residence encroaches up to 15 fe the 35 foot side yard setback. The ex retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet side yard setback and up to 50 feet in. 50 foot front yard setback. STRUCTURES Residence 4,480 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required if size of stru Garage 1,280 sq.ft. increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and ha Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. effect of increasing the size of the struct Service Yard 96 sq.ft. more than 25% in a 36-month period). Total GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code N/A DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa 14.1% any remedial grading (temporary disturb any graded slopes and building pad are nongraded area where impervious surfa exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) 7.5% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVER (Guideline maximum of 30%) 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be pe the grade of the accessway shall not e slope of 25 percent (25%). None N/A ROADWAY ACCESS Existing at southeastern portion of lot Middleridge Lane South VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 OF 6 ROPOSED No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq.ft. pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 17; RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS PROPOSED:' a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimurj Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on s square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% str lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall c located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses lg. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square fl i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and nat features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with vie of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surroundin properties. court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review • • RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. THE PLANNING.COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught with respect to real property located at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sports court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1999, June 15, 1999, July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 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: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Section 3. On April 28, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A 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 May 1, 1999. 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 therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 • • Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a sports court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect tothis 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 sports court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses i n the community, and the area proposed for the sports court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad that has been legally graded and compacted and will not have a material impact on that property. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed sports court will be modest in size, constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will replace an existing asphalt parking area, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the sports court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.31 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage and do not propose to grade the sports court area. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 CP • • F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a°Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 595 for a proposed 2,800 square foot sports court, as shown on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 6, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth i n 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. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with recreation court limitations. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,666 square feet or 11.3% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,416 square feet or 32.3%, coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad shall not exceed 3,250 square feet or 36.6%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9%. J. The area prepared for the sports court shall not exceed 2,800 square feet. K. Balanced cut and fill shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not be required for the project but, any soil preparation for the sports court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the sports court and landscaping. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. P. The sports court shall be screened with 8 foot high fencing on all four sides. Q. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs using Carolina Laurel Cherry, California pepper and Xylosma, as described on the proposed landscape plan. R. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court. S. The landscape plan shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a Iow 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. T. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE4OF7 • • 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 drainage, 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. U. Noise from sports court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. W. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Y. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the canyon at the west. Z. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AA. During construction, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 5 OF 7 • BB. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. CC. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. DD. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. EE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. FF. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. GG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. HH. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. II. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. JJ. Any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. KK. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. LL. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a drainage, building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 21ST D Y 9F SEPTEMBER, 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. 99-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta and Witte. NOES: Commissioner Sommer and Chairman Roberts. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. f. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 7 OF 7 Aft . sow • valslefte, .6.••••••••-..—* , •s, ' • %," .311* 4,;•;•0••' •• 1 „*.7. „A• • • '• a OCT 1 1999 U L Z L C1TY F R.OLLING HILLS uv inau itkr• 6&tfulpt AAtztol • constructed in the same manner as found in attached townhouse construction. No access from the interior of the portion used for a garage to the interior of the portion used for the other use shall be permitted. c. If a portion of the structure is intended to be used as a stable or barn, that portion of the structure shall be used exclusively for the purpose of keeping horses or other permitted animals. d. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy, or kitchen/cooking facilities or equipment in any portion of the detached garage or mixed use structure. e. A loft area may be constructed only over a stable area of the structure, pursuant to this Title and the Building Code. f. Where the garage, stable, or any other use that is specified on the approved plan is converted to another use, or if the proportions of any approved use is changed without required approvals, the permit granting the mixed use structure may be revoked, pursuant to Chapter 1758, and the structure shall be removed at the cost of the property owner. If any conditions of the permit are violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the permit may be revoked and the privileges granted by the permit shall lapse, provided that the property owner has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of 30 days, and further provided that the owner has been given an opportunity for a hearing. g. 7. RecreationalGame Courts Tennis, racquetball, and squash courts, and any other fenced, enclosed, paved or hard -surfaced areas used for recreational purposes shall adhere to the following conditions. 33 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 2A. 1993 • 17.16.210(A) a. A game court shall not cover so much of the lot that a legal required stable or corral could not also be provided on the site. b. A game court shall not be located in a front yard. c. A game court shall not be located within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements. d. Retaining walls constructed for a game court shall not exceed four feet in height at any point along the wall; retaining walls shall not be exposed to the exterior. e. The construction of the proposed game court shall conform to the lot coverage limitations as set forth in Section 17.16.070. f. A game court shall not be located on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall it be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses. When grading is required for a game court, cutting and filling shall be balanced on site and shall not exceed 750 cubic yards. h. The area graded for a game court shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. The existing topography, flora, and natural features shall be retained to the greatest extent possible. j. Drainage systems shall be incorporated into the game court and shall be approved by the City Engineer. k. A game court shall be adequately screened on all four sides; such screening shall be composed primarily of landscaping which shall be maintained in a healthy condition. Such landscaping shall be approved through the Site Plan Review process pursuant to Section 17.46.# g• 34 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24. 1993 1111 17.16.210(A) 111 1. Landscaping shall not interfere with m. Court Lighting shall not be permitted. n. Conditions shall be imposed when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. B. Conditional Uses As Primary Use 1. Elementary School Offering State -Mandated Curriculum No specific conditions shall apply unless conditions are imposed through a discretionary permit review process. 2. Fire Station No specific conditions shall apply unless conditions are imposed through a discretionary permit review process. 3. Gate House No specific conditions shall apply unless conditions are imposed through a discretionary permit review process. 4. Park and/or Playground No specific conditions shall apply unless conditions are imposed through a discretionary permit review process. 5. Public Utility Building No specific conditions shall apply unless conditions are imposed through a discretionary permit review process. 6. Temporary Manufactured Homes or Trailers Temporary manufactured homes and trailers may be permitted only in cases where an occupied primary residence on a property has been rendered uninhabitable by an active landslide. Any approval of a Conditional Use Permit for temporary living quarters within a manufactured home or trailer shall be subject to the following conditions and any 35 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 21, 1993 f , OCz I 1 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6-1Aa Ave. TvL 6'. • T I11999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7J i".,,,,,,,p__,..__. ,... n 0 _) n • I 19 99 4, TJ • • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES , C i.� 313 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET • LOS ANGELES, City of Rolling Hills Department of Building and Safety 24320 Narbonne Avenue Lomita, California 90717 Gentlemen: CALIFORNIA 90012 • + t9}9T4='7865j^ 7-3-21 t 741 - qb(21 co 13, 1979 September Subject: Private Sewage Disposal System for a proposed five - bedroom residence to be located at No. 27 Middleridge Lane, Rolling Hills, California OCT0 gag Fe 0 1 1 � " 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HALLS u�as/-e4 Ceu.„,e The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services will approve the installation of a 1500 gallon septic tank with the effluent discharging into two (2) 5'X30' below inlet seepage pits which will be located on the Westerly side of the dwelling. YS:dlw Very truly yours, Y�skhiaki Sugita, Chief Water, Sewerage and Subdivision Control Section, Room 306-G 9 M n S p-Q v- a U E336/14444, PVMP&SEPTIC July 20,1999 Single Family Dwelling 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Location of Private Sewage Disposal System • uY To Whom It May Concern: As requested, the private sewage disposal system at 27 Middleridge Ln. South is located on the lower west side of property/access road.. The system is composed of a septic tank with 24' manhole access and a 4'x 55' seepage pit, with 4" access riser. If there are additional questions, please contact our office. Respectfully, ENIN PUMP dE SEPTIC SERVICE • Nick Dragich Estimator/Supervisor 616 W 6th St., San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 832-4500 Fax (310) 832-3636 Sewer Contractor License X 749665 A rem.% -�- M►aa.ie_ 9 .. i-\ 44e,6•1'4i41.. 4114#414, tevy,,.ho1sdbcc.DA-VD racLe.. • i}y5s` p• n lEgEn7E OCT I 1 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS O C 1 ova ✓ (1440 3 t.333 �• a. 33 I,_ 2.0 .• u54 11 l :may CITY OF ROLLING ILS • 46f E. 10 410 KEITH W. EHLERO Consulting Engineering Geologist October 7, 1999 Mr. Ken Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Proj e D Fc A7N-911 n\ _.J OCT 111999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS kv 9' SUBJECT: STEEPNESS OF SLOPES DESCENDING FROM PAD AT txr;AR Or 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH Rolling Hills, CA Pursuant to your request, we measured the steepness of slopes that descend from a pad located behind the house at 27 Middleridge Lane South. Mr. Doug McHattie of Bolton Engineering was present at the time we performed the measurements. We measured the slope angles at four locations. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of where the measurements were taken. The slope angles were measured with a brunton compass and inclinometer. The measurements indicate that the slope angle varies with location. At location 1, the slope angle was measured at 36 degrees, which is a horizontal to vertical ratio of 1.38 to 1. The slope angle at location 2 was measured at 32 degrees, or about 1.6:1 ratio. The slope at location 3 was measured at 20 degrees or 2.8:1 ratio. The slope angle at location 4 was measured at 25 degrees or about 2.1:1 ratio. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, Lj/f David Longstr Consulting En ist 27520 Hawthorne Blvd., #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 • Ol Roiling J�ti63 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: citycfrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 10/11/99 DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595; AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248- B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South. BACKGROUND 1. An appeal regarding Zoning Case No. 595 was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a public hearing has been set for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. 2. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-13 on September 21, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at an existing single family residence. The Commission and adjacent property owners expressed concerns regarding Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. The vote was 3-2 with Commissioners Roberts and Sommer voting against the project. Supporting documents are attached to this staff report. The applicants presented topographic, landscape, viewscape, and cut -away landscape and hillside plans; building and grading permits approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Foreman; a letter providing grading history from a former owner, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane; a letter from Mr. John Slaught, applicant's father; and a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, stating that the construction of a sports court pad will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage. Mr. John Slaught and Landscape Consultant Rick Hilliard spoke in support of the project. Copies of the proposed plan submitted by the applicants were endorsed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 OF 6 t• Printed on Recycled Panel • • Mr. John Resich, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, photographs and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, existing slope grades, the 1981 grading approvals, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of the property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, real estate values, noise, and the landscape screening and views from his clients' residence of the proposed sports court. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson also spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more landscaping, and more mature California pepper trees be added to the landscape plan. 3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 4. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 5. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 6. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 7. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. • 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 9. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE2OF6 f' • • 11. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • • J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the appeal and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 OF 6 RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 OF 6 The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Total N/A 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq.ft. pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review .ti a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill no to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 OF 6 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. • Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review APPLICATION FILE NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER: Cu, lleolF.,.y.J�ll, REQUEST FOR APPEAL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, .1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Email cityofrh@aol.com CAse N0) CIS Y•A : �l dl�.r ��,e So. -cm ZQ WA.% c1.L1 e.r►ekc, Lor 4.-e vvr%e,tL '- 01netsa I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced applications) for the following reasons: p t-+Pts�G SIGNED: DATED: / - t °t FEE: 06 /33 ,,33 (Two-thirds of original application fee.) at Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Memo To: City Council, City of Rolling Hills From: Kenneth J Johnson Date: 09/21/99 Re: Zoning Case No. 595 : 27 Middleridge Lane South This application went through four planning meetings. There has been extensive public testimony and evidence presented reflecting the merits of the proposed development. We live adjacent to the subject property and the proposed location is the primary focal point from every room in our house. Listed below are the primary reasons we are appealing the recent 3 to 2 decision of the Planning commission: 1. The evidence on record does not support compliance with zoning requirements for a recreational game court. The slope is greater than 2:1 and the location of the pad is near the bottom of the canyon. Specifically this application does not meet conditions f, k, & n of the zoning ordinance pertinent to sports courts 2. In our opinion, this application does not comply with zoning ordinance # 17.26.010 (view preservation) as it relates to 29 Middleridge Lane South. Written evidence has been presented from two local realtors and a qualified appraiser detailing the negative impact the proposed development would have on view and property desirability thereby impacting value. 3. Slope stability is undetermined . What we have learned through research and discovery on this issue after four meetings is the following: • Page 1 • A. The original pad was created by placing fill soil directly over an existing landslide without proper compaction or supervision per county requirements. B. The pad slope per county records was determined to be below the 2:1 required grade. C. Water intrusion into this pad area per a letter to the applicant from Keith Ehlert (engineering geologist) should be avoided due to existing conditions. D. The septic system and seepage pit (4'diameter by 55'deep) is located in the middle of the pad, and transcends directly into the landslide. 4. .As a result of the conditions described in #3 above, the report prepared by staff is no longer correct in several assessment areas, particularly section VI, Geology and Soils. The procedures require art applicant to submit or disclose geological hazards 30 days prior to the first planning commission hearing so that staff could prepare an appropriate assessment for review by the members of the planning commission. 5. We would like to see theprimary property rights provided for under the current zoning regulations followed in this case and eliminate establishing .a precedence for future similar applications. • Page 2 • • 101ffe eied-ala• PUMP & SEPTIC 4411/04mor SemAi..ee oftwoolftwookr •giolirsor 4/Mir July 20,1999 Single Family Dwelling 27 Iffiddleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 p@ER9 AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING k4ILLS Re: Location of Private Sewage Disposal System To Whom It May Concern: As requested, the private sewage disposal system at 27 Afiddleridge Ln. South is located on the lower west side of ya ,.....,j;access road. The system is composed of a septic tank with 24' manhole access and a 4'x 55' seepage pLt, with 4" access riser. If there are additional questions, please contact our office. .• • Respectfully, ENIN PUMP & SEPTIC SERVICE Nick Dragich Estimator/Supervisor 616 W 6th St., San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 832-4800 Fax (310) 832-3836 Sewer Contractor Ucenae # 748665 e• • • %ma.i • . 1 thie04-11.1— Otirif.scl• 1 \Mk it ' row. We -acea-sis 4.0 - • Li 551 pt vit 4,0(2-mtv • kgetAeof- d : w i Ati 4y T1. 0' L. ! • • 1 • . d • • 1 • • nfj r7 AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF' ROLLING HILLS • tru J11 AUG 1 7 1999 r,ITY OF ROLLING HILLS v • • tnJ AUG 1 7 1999 rTY OF ROLLING HILLS y • • ;)cl A1.16 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HALLS • • lRj AUG 1 7 1999 CrlY OF ROLLING I-fiLLS -0) E wkq AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING FULLS G1v t.tD t5 u V7 AUG 1 7 1999 crr-y OF ROLLINO Hil P• AUG 1 7 i999 C ;iTY OF ROLLING HM„t.S • • ) RICHARD DEVIRIAN DAVID UTLEY BRIAN S. DETRICK OF COUNSEL HOWARD B. BROWN RON MANDELL DONALD B. DEVIRIAN July 23, 1999 LAW OFFICES OF DEVIRIAN, UTLEY & DETRICK 317 NORTH BROAD AVENUE WILMINGTON, CAUFORNIA 90744 TELEPHONES (310) 830-2323 OR (213) 775-7331 FACSIMILE (310) 830-2219 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THEIVE AUG 0 3 1999 CENTURY CITY OFFICE 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD. SUITE 2080 LOS ANGELES. CALIF. 90067 (310) 552-1919 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 1. My name is Richard Devirian. I.owned 27 Middleridge Lane S. from;January 27, 1984 until August 1998 at which time we sold to the Slaught family. My family and I were the first to actually reside in the house. From the beginning of our negotiations, I was aware of Mr. Slaught's desire to put a sports court on the lower pad. It was an important issue for him to be able' to create an area for his children to play: It was my understanding that the lowerr pad had been designed, constructed and approved at thetime of my purchase and we did not change or alter the pad ' during our ownership. Visually, it never changed appearance and has remained in its existing condition except for yearly weed abatement: • RICHARD DEVIRIAN CifiVE—D) JUL 2 0 1999 OF ROLLING H4LLS July 15, 1999 Project No. 37 1 Mr. Ken Johnson 29-Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPLANATION OF LETTER PROVIDED TO OWNER OF 27 MIDDL• LANE SOUTH Rolling Hills, CA The purpose of this letter is to explain to you the purpos letter dated June 15, 1999 that I prepared for your neighbc J.R. Slaught. You asked me if the letter I prepared for Mr. Slaught approval of the geology for a proposed,. recreational sports My letter dated June 15, 1999 is notan: approval of the gec: I was asked by Mr. Doug McHattie, to, prepare a letter f' Slaught discussing the impact construction of a sports court have on an existing ancient landslide that underlies the a the proposed sports court. The existence of the ancient lan is based on work.we performed on your property (29 Middler .review of published geologic -maps, and review of photographs. As indicated. in the letter to Mr. Slaught, it is my opinion t drainage improvements are incorporated into the construction sports court, the construction of the sports court would de the riskof the landslide becoming active. As stated letter, any increase in the amount of water entering the lan could cause it to become active. In addition, the letter ind that placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide could the factor -of -safety and result in the landslide becoming a It is my opinion that unless a complete geologic and engineering investigation of the area of the proposed sports is performed, the risk of the ancient landslide becoming act the future cannot be fully evaluated. As indicated in my let Mr. Slaught, I do not know the factor of safety of the a - landslide and no guarantee is expressed or implied tha landslide will not move in the future. KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist If you have any questions regarding the information present this report, please contact our office. spectfully Submitted, W. Ehlert Consulting Engineering Geologis 27520 Hawthorne Boule'ij dd, # • Rolling Hills Estates, C, (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 - 20-99 02 :10P Ke ohnson le-265-9318 P . 02 07/ 20/199E1 15: 45 , 3108 .636 . . A PAGE 02/02 21 h da. (ad • W etc* 411.4A1 ci• Ikt 00' 1 tockaftatrk t. Rehirti rI 10c) ,,(20i01,. #bccso.S4etrzeLh. . TzgAie • VI 4 l'R-rii2Ae• . • • • " ' , " 0 E@EntlE JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OF ROLLING 1-44LIS fav ,, M'1 ti it w %-ac t-ek K iTr-4enl:. 5ect„,..e- (ii)27 91.-keiLLat 301. 2 a 1`373 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS V V 1G ri4 C1?4ois•\ P-Am TZ‘Dc3I-N, JUL 20ry'i a'� r: F ROLLING KILLS JUL 2 0 199y off. i JUL 2 0 1999 6e4,-,s644-0ezzlk- JUL 2 0 19g9 17-02..0 1,4A cke b tee. o • J. R. SLAU(i�-IT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REAL. ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 5420 MEADOWDALE LANE • RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90274 • (213) 541.2167 July 20, 1999 To Whom It May Concern: i As Don's father and a licensed real estate broker I spent two years researching properties ih our local area for him and his family. An essential criteria, first established, was to find a home that had a large and suitable play area for his four young children. Many suitable homes in other respects were rejected because the yards were not adequate. When the home at 27 Middleridge in Rolling Hills became available for'purchase and seemed attractive in inany ways, the first concern was a play area and the use of the lower pad for this purpose: It was apparentthat even before any offeron the house would be presented that I should ask the Johnson family next door if they would have any objection to a sports court being placed on this lower pad. In answer to the specific question Ken Johnson's response was in a very gracious mannerto the effect "no, we would not object to a sports court as long as it was screened with landscaping". There was no statement or even an indication that it would have to be totally screened from "day one". If this had been his statement at the time I would have' indicated then and there that this is not practical or reasonable. With my experience as a general contractor and real estate developer building homes and shopping centers for over forty years I know that screening with landscaping without allowing for normal growth does not work. Jamming fully grown trees together would likely cause loss of many of them as well as being prohibitive in cost. I would have advised my son that his new neighbor was not being reasonable in his request. I feel Don and his family probably would not have purchased the subject property and would have continued looking elsewhere. tinowmp JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OFMING HILLS qv Respectfully submitted, John R. Slaught `re k fl i2 aua`rlc,a et E 15, - JUL 2 0 1(199 1,21Jr. 7/ qOf E 14 • JUL %01999 OtTsKOF ROLLING HU Y Lw.,'5 •J"Ag :- scar"'V a4 L' -j , .��may.`• -ii gioa P.N. 3798-96 I -SCALE 1" 100' i ILCA F a r • m '' f• , .hiS �,.-•-•,`3.i N +t.` . � p-, -AERIAL PHOTO AND REGIONAL TC OGRAPHIC `MAP SHOWING` _Sl'TF "e1 in aim / A Lining �e�� • ••• 1 " PPLICATION FOR .6 NG P - - - 641V-eneo7e ...I. • ,• '1. — 134.+ ".L•• - BUILDING AND,FAFETY.DIVISIO • FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN • e.; ADDRESS M zr RID 6i 114,,,JE SO. NUMBERS • • BLOCK . TRACT NUMBER; OWN E ' MA I L t7/1 RESS 'SP ...4•47, TEL .cLiitzzifziga' NO, • ENGINEER •.. -• REG. NO. - • • • ADDRESS CITY ' • "- •-•1:•:-.•••••- •—• • NO. • • . GRADINACT°G •.T L 3 1..2 CONTR ADDRESS 4:044414.40:•:'7• , t R M IT ) It ' Tx- -.at! ADDREssO.c,/ 14:4Ar''' LOCALITY CROSS_ST. . DISTRICT nO. MAP NO. • a USE iONE SPECIAL - ....- - - " - - - "'-'17-',""--7-,----,'",4•4-iii-) I ....-. STATE HWY. P SSED BY YES 0 NO • . eit c CONDITIONSeagkiaE6 _heerjr ' .4 - -•_ N :• - • EC'D. -DATE FILEO PROPOSED USE OF GRADED SITE(S) I., A LIMITED TIME PERMI litots i•-..ALL WORK AUTHORIZED MUST DE COMPLETED BY •••• TIME LIMIT: • ,k EiifeiiiiE5fo: • ...:',-,-.•,..41i.,:•••••••-.."_ .;i... . N. .• • • .. . . - •-. „..,. .' EXTENDED TO: --4- - . • --• ••••; -••••By-1--- -...-.• ----,-. • -:....:-...;.- CHECK IF SUPERVISED GRADING tar:- ••• .:. .' •••-:.; • .., SIGNATURE .......::„.....,.•" .. t,;,,,.., ___........,_,,,:.., _,.,„„.......„_.,...,,,..„., ,,,,..... .___, DM). ITO., • , ' .- INITiAL ''••• DATE ECTDR, IDNATURE •• • TEL OF APPLICANT .1,...,7... • ".:7-:., CoMFACTION 4/*)C .•: -It - .1.-) „4. 7,j ":t., .'.) .,... . . REpoRT REVD. ADDRESS s......,.-•-.. .-Ro..,;:s.7.7...*--...F.-7--'7"'...--.1--:,7 sti. ENGois.. . . , C •ERT REC.° -•. 1 - /e ....,,5 — • ___--.60.-,.-----.„. .., .-1 I. HEREDY.ACKNOWLEDGE'THAT. 1 .HAVE READ THIS ' , ' ' " CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITHALL COUNTY • APPRIII:AL. •;•,,-.:i., APPLICATION *NO -STATE • -THAT 73THE -ABOVE -IS ••. 'RDUGH 'GRADING - -• ."-- ••-•-• • -..-- 19;10 Arj. • • • •" --. • ..;r, .. . . .. . .. . . ORDINANCES .PAND STATE'LAWS REGULATING EXCA- 1 ."..rika .,ir, V *f.TING AND'GRADING. -- .%.1....--.1„.y."'"--_-',....s*:. ;_:,,,,.v ::::. ,::,:t4;:•th,...; iltiiii-f 1—" ---L'' i ;2. '' . 2.:•:.-:',,1-.: ...-4,4,-;$;;•%-,i•,•-,"'-• •,-:..i --.;:••:••••,-.7-1.."-'i • - :..- slOkAiuitE OF .•-yeRmirrEE ..!,:•,•-•,.......!..±..„27.J.N,-.1.- AGENT FOR t,,.•.:,•eli.C.,:i...::-.:':!-:- ADDRESS • cuoic ros. HANDLED: -• SUP. MOWS. -"I , •• _'• FINAL CERT. ,-. . . .„.• APPROVAL rINAL cs.-A 4r31 ••••••-;.• •1 4 suRET4 BONO. i -r•-•••&.,•Jok•'....?-•,,,- • •••-•,•• . - - -.. 1., • , • 41) . . . 7- .6 emit 74 Fee .- Issuance Fee •;?-•,.;:(71 I Total Fee f.' ro- - ••• PyIMLT V4L1%TION • 11, 0 CI 0 -• cz - . • * ,e.r..+44a-t,;1 • • • ' •• INSPECTION NOTES:i) ;•14 • 71 • • • . • 34sztv - • P. vs i 7„,•1 ,• • • • - . • - ••77 -T•'' . „:,.; • -• -A - • • • • . • , y - • 1%, .1i74--;77 ,1•".1••-, •••-•• . _ . , - r t • • .44. •-, • t, t • It .‘.1 • • , r. • • die jtjj • - ..7••• 4.27.4 r • , 4.7 7•'. . ••: J., • • • •• •3 7 :•• •-• . - • • - -• = -`•••••••••:, ,,• . ' • • . • ,••• . • •• v • :1 - ..r • AIN:41'4qt • : ._-- • . - >. ,_.:•••••• -... • ••• •,•4 _ ••• • . • . • ••• t • • ••t, • 27.7 •- GEOLOICAND USO1LS REPOftT-S1. . . P R E P A R D B Y bATED RECO• AP!? Ei V: D M,A:74 ;K: . • - • : .•.=• 7••'Q•7e. • • 1-'44 • • ,••• s- • 7 • I - ?sr S 4:4 V. . , `•.• • '4 • . - - - ••ri•.* „ r 1,T; B,•,•• • .,qT)t•'-' • • =714 A 2 '-'1-AAP"^. ' "' • Isf-; • 00•1.:::14';'.‘; 40 • • • ... ... • .. „.. COs 7,0- • • 7"74-:,, • -.•-• • • 'r:. : . . ., • . • • J•s•'•:- ...................... ...L., ' • . --- -,... 4- '•,•' ,4 ••- - ...,. - ....., i • '•,.. , '7„, . 4-4, . i; • ..., • — - -..gt-7..;:i. '-'1.:"."7.:J1.4t- •.4.—..er.c.x7147..A‘Zi''!11...r..g(rj..-.,.•7Z;*M.. trillt7--1,,ini.::<:-'..#4 I . J', .k P'Jj'r.e i i 7' ..: :-.; .4 0X VC'', : ' '0 " :4=k•• . ..., . doli 4 , ..- td1 • - .. . 7...4. Jo Ld' 4.1 L Q ......., ..." .,. ,-•r• - , . . • _a a. 1 Ci, 1,••• CD — —. • ji WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION !hereby affirm that 1 have o certificate of consent to self' , +sure, or a certificate of Workers' Compenstivn Insurance, o' ',certified copy thereof (Sec. 3800, Lob. 5.) : plicy No. Company • ' • . Certified copy is hereby furnished. • Certified copy is filed with the county building inspec- • tion deportment. 3,ote Applicant r h CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE This section need not be completed if the permit is for one Oundred dollars ($100) or less.) I certify that in the performance of the work f r which this permit is issued, 1 shall not employ any perso any manner to as to become subject to the Workers' nsotiLaws. .Dale a1/ J tApplicant_ NOTICE TO. AP LICANT: If, after making this tificote of •-Exemption, you should become subject to to Workers' Compensation provisions of the Labor Code, you must forth - ,.with comply with such provisions or this permit shall be • ;,deemed revoked. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION • 11 hereby affirm that I om licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and a Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. a. License Number Contractor Lic. Clay Dote I am exempt from the licensing requirements as 1 om o licensed architect or a registered professional engineer acting in my professional capacity (Section 7051, Business and Professions Code). Lic. or Reg. No not. OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exertipt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 7031.5, Business and Professions Code): ❑ 1, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Section 7044, Business and Professions Code). I, as owner of the property, om exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec- tion 7044, Business and Professions Code). CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY 1 hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097, Civ. C.). Lender's Namr Lender's Address I certify that I hove read this application and state that the above information is correct. 1 agree to comply with all County ordinances and State laws relating to building construction, and hereby au orize representatives of this County to enter -mentioned prop peclion purposes. upon the a aer, glee Ir APPUCATIOi'tfOR B1JILDIN'G PERMIT COUNTY OF LOF ANGELES BUILDING AND SAFETY t - FOR 'APPLICANT TO FIIA IN .; AD•JRESS •GUILDING ti 27 Mi ddl eri dae CITY Rolling Hills Est. ZIP 90274 1 1/2 acre,OW ON LOTs. -0- TRACT 26113 'BLOCK !LOT NO. 2 TEL. OWNER Houshang Weki l i NO. 541 —981g SIZE OF LOT ' DDRES! 609 Deep Valley D Y Rolling Hills Est. ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER Young &Assoc. ADDRESS 1 1 8 S. Catalina CONTRACTOR niAlnetIBldgay. ADDRESS .1 CITY SQ. FT. NO. OF NO. OF SIZE . 4398 ISTORIES 1 FAMILIES 1 ZIP 90274 TEL R.B.. CA TEL. NO. LIC. NO. LIC. CLASS DESCRIPTION OF WORK Construct sinale family residence with attached gar. USE OF. EXISTING BLDG. ---- APPLICANT IPRINT1Haushang Weki'l i ADDRESS6O9 Deep Valley Dr. R.H. EST CHECK ONE NEW . ADD ❑ ALTER. ❑ REPAIR 0 DEMOL 0 Ho.541-9819 BUILDING ADDRESS 7 )1/,!- C (erldM19, Let.. S•. LOCALITY X. 14-' I NEAREST CROSS ST,. ASSESSOR MAP BOOK USE ZONE /p4 DISTRICT . /n PAGE API' `7` %,'�i MNO. ' SPECIAL COI)IDITIONS GROUP,. TYPE CONST. /a - 4a I - STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION CLASS NO. 0 • DWELL UNITS SEWER MAP •';�9j �1- VALUATION /s, oC9d PRESENT BUILDING ADDRESS LOCALITY MOVING CONTRACTOR ADDRESS REQUIRED SET BACK FRONT P.L. SIDE P.L. YARD HWY TEL. NO. • TOTAL SETBACK FROM PROP. LINE EXIST. WIDTH P.C. Fee E Investigation Fee Permit Fee Issuance Fee 7.au Total Fee /4239. 61> FINAL 11 �" / ,, ! DATE 7 ' .r •'J FINAL BY /D/40. I FIRE ZONE 3 f !PARCEL PROCESSED BY APT. COt4IDO. VALIDATION SEE REVERSE FOR EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE -; r T.Yr4V,QX5?.i • • COM i�N1'UTtON . ILLS . : S �[`,t1QQ ROLLING p Oat Qilainq Pro�R,:� 19 .,` .. 21 /f Jjferit t CO t 1")e. eil, .21 made 1440.. i inspector KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist June 15, 1999 Pr d ergiE (11,2393;ti�5 ttli�%�J't5� Mr. J.R. Slaught JUN 1 51999 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry SUBJECT: INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PROPOSED TENNIS COURT 27. Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA I have reviewed the area of the proposed tennis court. The proposed tennis court will be located within an ancient inactive landslide. It is my opinion that construction of the tennis court and improving drainage in the area of the ancient landslide will decrease the risk of the landslide re -activating in the future. It has been my experience that in most cases, ancient landslides re- activate as a result of introduction of water into the landslide. As part of the proposed improvements, providing adequate drainage to reduce the amount of water entering the landslide area is imperative if reducing the risk of future landslide movement is to be achieved. In general, it is my opinion that construction of the tennis court will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. The opinions expressed above are based on site observations and work I performed on. the neighboring property (29 Middleridge Lane South). No guarantee of future site performance is expressed or implied. I do not know what the factor -of -safety of the existing landslide is. Any proposed grading that results in placing fill in the upperportion of the landslide likely will lower the factor -of - safety and may result in activation of the landslide. As such, no fill should be placed in the upper portion of the landslide. In addition, the proposed improvements should not include lawn areas. It has been my experience that excessive watering of lawns can re -activate landslides. Any increase in the amount of water entering the landslide will lower the factor -of -safety and could de -stabilize the landslide. 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 • • P.N. 4202-99L Page 2 It is my opinion that although construction of the proposed tennis court in conjunction with appropriate drainage improvements will lower the risk of landslide activation, no guarantee is expressed or implied that the landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please contact my office. Respectfully submitted, eit ' , � hlert �, Consu t ng Nrj ee g Geologist 6 • 11 V IR lgo JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING I-MLLS Hy June 14th, 1999 To Members of the Planning Commission - I had a call recently from a friend who questioned whether a sports court, sited in a primary view direction, would have a negative impact on the value of his home. It is my opinion, based on 12 years in real estate in Palos Verdes, that there could be a substantial loss of value to his home depending on the visibility of the sports court from his home. Views are one of the major determinants of value. In fact, the City view preservation ordinance recognizes "the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the city". It goes on to say that the views are a "special quality of property ownership" for many homes in the city. It is my feeling that the above is especially applicable in this case. The existing (very) rural canyon view with the city as the backdrop, would lose much of it's dramatic appeal if the focal point of the immediate view was instead replaced with concrete and chain link. In order to retain as much value as possible as provided by the current view, my suggestion would be to try to mitigate the negative impact of the sports court with screening vegetation tall enough to hide the sports court from view, yet not so tall as to create it's own problem of view obstruction. Sincerely, Charlie Raine ReMax Palos Verdes • F� Fred Sands PALOS VERDES REALTY 16 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, Califomia 90274 Telephone (310) 378-1907 Facsimile (310) 378-2158 June 10, 1999 - City of Rolling Hills l'Manning Conunission `Re: #29 Mlddleridge Lane South Gentlemen: • 'pgE11W1B--0) JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. tau is i,,, arkety(Lva� :prop 7 .pQ 1 3« 'H ': ,.,: '.`;r^rti..l`;;:::''::t.-�,`. w:^,,c,. t, s4 a �i`'Fi.<�l',.',. •�.k• ..•- . y opnnon >s based upon my 12 years. 6fexperience as a•licensed real estate agent on the P Peninsula. This experience has included 26 transactions in Ving residences in the rllin`illa tvrere I represented either the buyer orseller. J presently am affiliated with alos.Verdes Realtyas Director ofthe Estates Division.,• r} °. My. oEiri on' the proposed sports court Will detract fromthe value of Mr. Johnson's pro riinatily for tliefollowing two reasons: ;';I ''.} Ken Johnson, owner of the above property, has asked for. my opinion as to whether weed reereatronal sports court to be built on the adjacent property would detract from h in sports court, as proposed, will be clear view eac and every room of Johnson's home. This situation will result in a tioublesonteIoss of privacy.to The Johnson family. Rolling Hills, of course, is renowned for its 'privacy and this is • a primary objective of all potential Rolling Hills buyers. The sports court would cause such an intrusion on this privacy that it logically would negatively impact the desirability and hence the market value of Mr. Johnson's property. • The sports court will contaminate the sweeping and tranquil views of ocean and city lights that the subject property enjoys by creating a significant distraction in the foreground.' In all likelihood, this distraction would become an annoyance to most people especially when the court is in use. The quality of the view is a critically important factor in establishing value of properties on the Peninsula. A distraction such as the proposed sports court would substantially reduce the value of #29 Nflddleridge Lane South. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Tillson' Director, Estate Division KTT:frn•• Independently owned and operated • • r.. GQ Eg.tSFATl:: • .. .; left. �-fc.'-� •' .. 1972Q V r Btvd.,Sta C v. 4 tiv 9l . ':'' P Pinar (31D).20541097 !hiogd (818)'.J87-9494' P4aae (213) 87771808 . F4 • .. (818) 883=1969 . ;l golden State Appreals, Inc. lEgEHEI JUN 1 51999 June 9,1999 Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Diminution of Value 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Fly The above referenced subject property was appraised by our firm on December 11, 1998. We will refer to our file and photographs for the purpose of supporting our statements in this letter. It is our opinion that a sports court blocking or deterring from the overall unobstructed view of the city orcanyon will cause a diminution in value as a result of its construction. The overall marketability will be reduced due to the reduction in appeal. This is especially true if the sports court is the primary focal point and can be viewed from every room in the house. There is a limited supply of homes with unobstructed views. Thus, the value of the view to the overall value is a greater percentage. The only potential cure would be to allow a sunken sports court not obstructing the city view and sufficient landscaping to eliminate it as a focal point. Sincerely, 1 1 �� La ence .'yne5, J.D.�A .J. Appraiser Atins GEOTECHNICAL A.<�i0� A AKO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1818 E. BALL ROAD / ANAHEIM, CA 92805.5977 / (714) 635-6570 Toll Free: (800) 422-4117 Faver Construction ' 1600 Cabrillo Avenue Torrance, California 90501 Subject: Evaluatio Residenc LosAgele References: 1. ltith Bay Engineering Corp., dated August 14', 1981. 2. Young & Associates, "Building Plans, Sheets 1-18," date printed January 22, 1981. 3. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Proposed Residential Construction, Lot 2,-Tract 26113, Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hilis, California," dated September 29 & December 30, 1980, Project .Reference 2a78-02. 4. 'Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "-Soil Creep, Lot 2, Tract 26113,....," dated February 5, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. Gentlemen: DEC 0 T 1913 Job #3841-F1-83 November 29, 1983 7:1 wer Graded Pad Downslope from Existing ddleridge Lane.South, Rolling Hills Zd 6 , unty, California. "As -Built Grading Plan," 5.. Lockwood Singh & Associates, "Report .of Geotechnical I.nve.sti.gation, Lot 2,' Tract 26113,....," dated December 21, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. Presented herewith. are the results of our evaluation of the lower as -graded pad downslope from the existing residence. Our findings and conclusions are presented based on a field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The subject property was graded and the residential structure constructed in 1981, . The, grading consisted of cut and fill grading to construct two level pad areas. The upper pad in the eastern end of the property had the residential structure and driveway constructed upon it. The structure is reportedly supported on a caissons and grade beam: foundation founded into competent bedrock. 9 3 r D JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING RiLLS Rv • #38414)-83 -2- Based on our review of the referenced reports, there was no engineering supervision done during the grading of the site. Therefore, none of the fill soil placement was supervised or certified and all structure were required to be supported through all fill soils and into competent bedrock. A field investigation consisting of.a site inspection and subsurface exploration was conducted on November 10., 1983 and November 15, 1983. Two exploratory trenches were excavated using a rubber tire backhoe. The soils were logged by our field_ geologist. :The approximate locations of the trenches are shown on the plot plan. The trench logs are presented in Appendix A. Th.e trenches were backfilled upon completion of our investigation. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained at frequent intervals. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a drive tube in accordance with ASTM Test Method-D-2937-71 C76)'. In -place density tests were also taken . using the Sand Cone Method in accordancewith ASTM D-1556-64 (74). All'soil sampl'o5 cwere_transported:to.:our. laboratory.. See Appendix B for laboratory test results. Based on the referenced preliminary geotechnical report (reference no. 5), the original natural earth material conditions- consisted of a clay topsoil and subsoil that overlaid the bedrock to depths of 2 to 17 feet. Underlying bedrock consists of siltstone and shale, slightly bentonitic. Grading in 1980 added a maximum of 20 feet of fill in the lower graded pad area. Based on our review of the referenced reports and our subsurface exploration,- proper keys and benches were not cut into competent bedrock prior to fill placement. Fill soils were apparently placed directly on theoriginal topsoil. Relativecompaction of the fill soils were found to be 85 to 88% of maximum density. *The original topsoil underlying the fill soils was: found to be moist to wet and soft to slightly firm, indicating insufficient reworking of the topsoil prior to fill placement and questionable competency. The fill slope descending along the west end of the pad is finished at an inclination as steep as.1.7 to 1 (horizontal:vertical). The slope surface areas are soft to depths of at least 18 inches and do not have good surface compaction. A stability analysis was performed on the existing fill conditions —~ to determine the degree of stability. Calculations were performed based on results of direct shear tests presented in Appendix B and the laboratory test results in the referenced reports. The stability analysis indicates that the lower pad area is grossly stable with a safety factor of1.90- and 1.13 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. AAKOGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Although the lower pad is determined to be grossly stable, there is a potential for some minor downhill creep of the .fill soils due to the low relative compaction of the fill soils, the 1.7:1 steepness of the fill slope, and the soft soil conditions in the fill slope face. Based on these aforementionetsonditions and the incompetencyof the original topsoi1s_underly the fi11 0 ls.. tbe._Lower pad area is de rma mined to ba_un uitab1.e__for_ the support of any ructuxgs,. Thi s 1 ower pad area may be safely used for non-structural purposes such as horse corrals or landscape areas without -detrimental effects or safety hazards. To increase the overall stability of this lower pad area, the following recommendations may be followed: 1. The fill slope surface should..be overexcavated to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, properly benched, backfilled and recompacted to at least 90% of maximum -density. The slope surface should be compacted by either overfilling and cutting back to expose the compacted core or by suitable mechanical methods. 2. The pad drainage should be properly designed to ensure surface drainage away from th.e slopes and off the pad in a non - erodible manner. 3. The slopes should be planted with a suitable deep rooted, drought resistant ground cover type vegetation to enhance the surficial stability i;ty of the slope. 'Additionally, we recommend the use of deep rootedtrees and busies' to enhance the surficial stability at greater depths-. To obtain a structural pad suitable for the support of a structure, all the fill soils would have to be -removed and the original topsoil over - excavated down to competent bedrock, which would result in excavations as great as 28 feet in depth. A keyway and benches would have to be excavated into th.e bedrock prior to fill placement and fill soils would have to be placed in horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 inches, properly watered or aerated to achieve optimum moisture content and compacted to at Least 90% of maximum density. The fill'slope must be finished at an inclination not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Our findings andconclusions are based on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied nor made. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CC)NV 11TAMT '�Ir • #384 .-83 -4_ This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any further questions regarding this.matter, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ERY,.R.C.E. 24711 AAKOHNICAL ENGINEERING Et .Ic11! Tei 1AMC 'Mr #3841-F1=83 APPEHDfX A TRENCH LOGS A AKO GEOTECHNICAL ErA�K,INEERI^N ��� • Logged By RW Client• Faver Construction ATTITUDES EARTH MATERIALS v) 4.3 VI � i0 0 rO r t; r 0 W C a O C + 3 0 in +-3 -01 H = •0 iQ C \ RS el C a O C 4.3 0 vl +-3 +3 V! — r— i.1 f IS lb •r In•r•- vs E ../.*******/**Ifj -,C 5- N 4- • A >, a ar— ID N -P r- L C! ▪ C7f �l •r a• •r- r- r- of ✓ C >, O VI a7 III +-, Vi O r >, 0 5-a) +3 of . 0 +3 fd y.. - w +3 L v1 +-) rai a � 0 3 3 ..3 E o 0 S. +3 1 w ,I P— vl Y N r .r i •rQ- i E a E 1 1 d CD Q CL Fa F— #3841-083 -6- TRENCH LOG NO. T-1 Job No.: Trench Orientation. N58°W Date: 11/15/R3 Site• Middleridqe Lane South, Rolling Hill O� �o o \>p 3 _ In - o a — _ 0 0 m 1 O O • fa N m = d- 0 S4 O Et 00° 0 at ,4 O 'fa:.2U_. in N in N .t.c ) S4 a i a et; N' ati • 0 f ' 1` r #38410-83 TRENCH LOG NO. 'T-2 Logged By: RI'1 Client• Faver Construction co W 1— w N . 1-1 b O to ' O C t0 N a CO C . O - 1a) 0 Q n 4-1 M •r r. OC • 1LI 'v) E 1Hy Q 3 S.. ••2 a V) �L.. U .0 t7▪ ) >y 1— 4•3 10 CC jai 3i U <r r•- 1n III in ▪ C >20 a to 01 10 +3 43 C • U 4-4-tn Or= >►O Si. N a-) N c ..in +1 r- 3 0 +1 Ste• •- VI 4- S- • 0 3 A J E O.. i S 1 " .CI tJ) 4, r• ill Y t▪ o Y 1,..• se-0 S.. •pr S_ Ii E t� E 1 t 1 d CO U tv tv W 0. ti a a... I 1.•.A a wet, slightly firm to firm. - 7- i� Job No.: Trench Orientation. N550W Date• 11/15/1 Site: Mi ddl eri dae Lane South . Rol 1 i n a Hi 11; SCALE: 1 ".... S' GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION 0 1 111 O J -6Pcoil_ rriA•li,,1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • D #3841-F1-83 _ _ 8 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS AAKOGTECHNICAL EO►�1 ._ • Client: Fe2 Ja-k-, Technician:_11,— ', #33-F1-83 Job #: DIRECT SHEAR TEST Site: ROIL. ! IrII Date: J / —/ID - FS3 Soil : <, L.-Ty6/Ay .� jj Sample: T I Qj /L _ / Iornr,/,del Test Method: ASTM D-3080-72 Sample Dimensions: Diameter: r,� . Height: /,(' Initial Dry Density: 7/.(o pc-1 Initial Moisture Content: me '' Ultimate Value: 0: C: Peak Value: 0: Z ° C: Rio ,,s..c- Residual: 0: 21 ° C: .z.zo ,,s4- 250C 200f1 LL. Shear Stress (Pounds Per Sq. 150(1 1000 50r, 0 RCS !Aron. VALVE 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Bearing Pressure (Pounds Per Sq. Ft.) o Indicates soil sample at field moisture condition. • i..c:i..a tes -soil sample- -at -s-atura-ted- -moisture-condhtion. * , r e-% GEoTECHNICAL • 0 13841-F1-83 -10- APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY A AKO EGNGIEOTENEERICHNICAI NG .. 5Ai5'11 Her GRAVE. ORIklr1AL GftAPe Surcharge Area Section Slice p.s.f. Ft 2 3C,A0t_61A At3K'A 2La gcGsQ'B LGo c.nc'(.. . C c o D FILL- 8� Top3o A� ogler sots-/BEPROG$- 1N'f6RFALE 6 5cri b N A -A .SCP•L‘ i I".'_.O'......... SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 0 o p.c.f . W - lb. �NC WSin oCCosoc lo0 24000 IR' 1 ' 2zo 74'4o loa Gcooa !A° 13" V* /54.90 t do (.,G000 10' IV 22o 11 z9r7 gfc Do 34:" Safety Facto • .A5so6P1): 5011- PARA,I —rEAJ j pserlr; 01= 1r' G= a,-opss .....�y"l Qo ((.f WCos2'(Tan {d L 2LCasd a F=Ma Ft.. Static Seismic s43o 41 /27Go 1430o 41 874o 1478a 43 932-0 • 3 56a 3og29` ,Is z3?a0 /, 90 /. l3 i • • #3841,-83 -12- APPENDIX D PLOT PLAN GEOTECHN}CAL A A KO ENGINEERLNG Exg61 p tier ORi rNA -ropSota QRICrgNAt-. solL/S6PKoc.tc- E3Cpaocg. S5GTioN A -A Title SCP L.E; ►"= 3o' 5tG1ION A -A AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Client Site 1818 E. Ball Road FAV6 2 CoosTRucrior 13 M,00t$ R,P6e LArg S.JTH Anaheim, CA 92805 r2o«►r+ es'r4Ti6S1 C A (714) 635-6570 • 46q f- E.K S TIN •. - 4-• .161 15 Oil 1 : • .;•- • /25: . . • kt_ C -- • — • f. •1°. 6.266' OF A C. Ifie,MG Racreo--. I • •-• • ;.• " • . ' • • : .,,p;;;.• , ,;- • , • i•i'sil. ir : . • :7.. I ?...'ltk „i.i•.:..t :,... : !..: . t ig.'-'• - ' . .F. 1.;.; i . _. .---,-- , r - -1.• '.—• 7-7 7777 • " • .: ; . r - • . k ; -,,,,i'...j.:,' • ; .! ' ! • . • r • . -- .• • .: .- ; v::. t• • -, • • • u a (1 , z 0 ut3,_ -zz z__< In Xim I.. ••0 0 : U t.,—. id co 40 0 CNI CG ON 0 ' 1...0 r.... r-ii in II PA ..-: •••4 ,..o 0 U I CCI UN CS:1 - =it •• Col • El V/3 . 'Li."'" - r4•ri 0 •••.. 0 .r•••• = ..q.. . < CO 0 •..? r4 0 r•I .0 co r•-• ca lin 1,4 •gC %••• I• °ma T.- )4 Pt- .RA-ro rksre c pis 4-1 co cJ cn • r". TOILS ENGINEERING REVIEWE COUNTY OF LOSANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER Design Division SOILS ENGINEERING SECTION Mi.ddleridge Lane South Lot 2, Tr ct 26113, Boling Hills Paver Construction WO Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer A ARfl Geete _hni cal F.ng'i np�i ng (Job 3841-F1-83) • Ec) IG.VG SHEET / OF / DISTRIBUTION ❑ Plan Check - Building and Safety ❑ Site Engineer ❑ Geologist ❑ Soils Engineer ❑ Geology Section (=eel ngy Sects rnn ❑ distribution ❑ (PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S)) REVIEW OF: ❑ Grading Plan No. . ❑ Geologic ReportDated ❑ Other ❑ Refer to references in review dated ❑ Building Plan No. MI Soils Report Dated 29 November 1983 ACTION: O Plans and Reports are approved; 0 Before approval the following Ailgieg,Anst Reports are approved information is required: su-`bjecti conditions below, REMARKS: The gross stability calculations of the lower pad area are approved. However, as recommended by the soils engineer, this area is unsuitable for support of any structures and should be used for non-structural purposes only. The soils engineer also should evaluate the nature of any hazards created by (ate the soft fill slopes descending from the lower pad and (b) the driveway fill wedge between the house and lower pad. Hazards should be removed as recommended by the soils engineer and approved by the City and County. THEM-6 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Rv Prepared by Reviewed by Date qQ 1 J Dut.e1iju%1- • .c Site Address -h Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Review of: 0 0 0 0 0 Action: Remarks: GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEEIlk Mr, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1111 DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEER -FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY.SECTION 738-2161 m^ 11 r -.•.; 7• •••%.• • .•-e / • ; . . . • k • r - • ••••• 1-•", • 7.‘ "'! !,•• r t's ort• PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Grading Plan No. Building Plan No Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dated Other Plan is approved El Plan opproved subject to, conditions below '• • • Prepared b' j• . 11 - Li SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: 0 Plan Check 1:21 Dist. Engineer Developer -Owner O Site Engineer p Geologist 0 Soils Engineer Geol. Sect. File C3 Grading Section o Plan is not approved for reasons below e. • -r•••• • _ 4. . Ai y r• ri v •:. t r- -• • ; • • • .J , ., . .. , ,..is :.., . • ;; ..••• 1.7 i : -7 'i ', er...._ • ,•• 11, .. r ...- -1- cl, :•...1 11 C- ,ri r -• 1 •-•.• : i I f...,....vi...r.1 ., 1 5.1 ..--... c.; v .(, c.I. 1 v Cf t ,,f," i • r 1 . . P ';,. *, ! —.......-..-.., ...1-4 Submit plans for recheck 1 L. get 47: 1 C) j1. 1.••• eci ci ti r = iy . I V: I ) ' ) IL •: I : . ..... V) I-) 1 (.11 VA 1.- • el C— -77 i I -- ' ••• L.' .d5C--- I .1- .. i: ; .1 c. t-1.3" 1 1,1 *-;" V? zi•... •••• c . fI-1 - 14 P • Reviewed •-•-• • 14 - t.: •._ •• e") C: •f, 1.• .• 11.1 2 It' 1' • ' • • ."-•• 'oe t• • • —r ' Site Address 71t, 7 Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Review of: ri 0 Action: .,,GEOLOGIC REVIEW'Sli COUNTY OF, LOSANGELES DEPARTMENT OF 'ENG/NEER—FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION 974-.7338 #•<-1 4. go,id 1.01) ./t/A17 111,11741: kc131.11 Ntf 71r., * Z re- it/ - ,e4 -717 rt e" 14, e-- - • 4 h PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Grading Plan No. 4 0 4 Building Plan Nr Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dated Other - • O Plan is approved O Plan approved subject to conditions below Remarks: r r• • • SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: O Plan Check VJ Dist. Engineer Developer -Owner O Site Engineer in Geologist En Soils Engineer fl Geol. Sect. File EII Grading Section gi Plan is not approved for reasons below Submit plans for recheck .fr 74j .. /. / tc" we- et / . • e". • j V r71 e- e-e /7 1 CPI-, L . G 4 ti71/re4 -/ /. Prepared by 47 k • C- 6e.0 y C / flit' C / • •• ..1 t.. -5- 0 11 el / e" •_ •f- I c lo / A-1 e r7 ? c //' .f 147 ail CA' /P. frIc••. / / o /- e- t• el 7 be ,; ".2.21-1 11/ . / / _./- c ,' - e- c-7 c . . / / fr .-. e.-/ / j.-- ,-) i i . ..-., , : - 1 - i 6 i-) e...... $.5-e (2.. t.50 / /5- .. #, 7 I Al tr i- k"i ,-1 - /le t - , - iv 0 /......,-• - .4 •e---/ i (F. Reviewed 1 D c /di!' / • Lockwood - Singh & Associates A CORPORATION Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists 9977 Jefferson Boulevard • Culver City, California 90230 Telephone: (213)870-7335: (213)836-5431 R. BRUCE LOCK W OOD. R.E.G. AWTAR SINGH. C.E. February 27, 1979 Southstone, Inc. c/o Dr. Robert E. Norcross 3655 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 209 Torrance, California 90505 Project Ref. 936-72 IE@EGNE JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING FILLS SUBJECT:, ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF GEOTEQ-!NICAL INVESTIGATION DATED DECEMBER 21, 1977 LOT 2, TRACT 26113 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: This addendum is submitted in response>to a question raised by Mr. R.E. Smith, Engineering Geology Section, County of Los Angeles, in a Geologic Review Sheet dated February 8, 1979. The Review Sheet stated that, "The area of the corral has been shown as a landslide on the California Division of Mines and Geology map and as an area of slope wash and creep by the consultants., Will a buttress be required for the 2:1 slope?" The January 3, 1979 grading plan by L.A. Young, A.I.A. T1 Associates shows that the proposed development in the area of the corral will be mainly fill slopes. It has been recommended in our referenced report that a key of 3 feet deep into competent material be provided at the toe of the fill slopes and that the compacted fill be benched into competent material as filling progresses. This will essentially eliminate most of the slope wash and creep soils in the area. Cut slopes planned in the area will remove some of the slope wash and creep soils. The amount remaining is not considered to be significant and no JUL 1 6170 • • Proj. Ref. 936-72 Norcross - Middleridge -2- February 27, 1979 buttress is considered necessary. The proposed grading should improve the stability of the area. The resulting graded slopes are considered satisfactory for the intended use. Very truly yours, LOCKWOOD-SINGH $ ASSOCIATES Awtar Singh CE 17727 AS/RBL:jmf 41' 444 e ,41/4 R. Bruce Lockwood CEG 204 • EDWARD CtSON BEALL, AIA AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS EDWARD CARSON BEALL, MCP, AIA GEORGE C. SHAW, NCARB, MA MILES E. PRITZKAT SUSAN R. BEALL, ASID JUUE HEINSHEEMER, ASLAA City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 14, 1999 LANDSCAPE Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: In reference to Zoning Case #595 Slaught Residence 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) Through much research of the nursery stock available from the largest growers in LA County, I have determined that the best plant material available to screen the Slaught tennis court is as follows: PRUNUS CAROLINIANA - CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY As upright shrub, it can be well -branched and used as formal, clipped hedge or tall screen to 20'; trained as tree it will become broad -topped and reach 35-40'. Densely foliaged with glossy green, smooth -edged; small creamy white flowers in Feb. to Apr.; small black fruit. Needs no water once established. Immediately available from Norman's Nursery in a 24" box tree, 8-9' tall x 3' round XYLOSMA CONGESTUM - XYLOSMA (zy-LOZ-muh) Usually a loose, graceful, spreading shrub that grows to 8-10' tall and as wide or wider. Can be used as a single or multitrunked tree, arching shrub, espalier on wall or fence, clipped or unclipped hedge. Leaves are shiny, yellowish -green, clean and attractive; new growth bronzy; flowers insignificant, rarely seen. Moderate watering. Immediately available from Boething Treeland in a 24" box tree, 5,5-6' tall x 2.5-3' round Yours truly, EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES einsheimer JH:smc 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD FAX: (310) 375-9530 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 (310) 378-1280 E-Mail: ecbeallr aol.com City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South Dear Planning Commission Members: MAY 1 4 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RV This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which 1 received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated. When the original developer built 27-Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. May 13,1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planni*g commission. We generally are in support of , their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenneth J c Don Slaught J'"A J� coolot z.t r"`aau'`Oti.e. veiva•t •fera • •et lkiut';' eitit • • c14 < Rotting JJdi NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a Hein► sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Pla ing Director Printed on Recyraea Pane, , J 1 I •' r f „ '9 169•B D.R. /50 -J , / 1 /4 / • 1 i ' tlo-•/ I TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS / I / / // / / 1 7 1 f `. lei e t —14 J'r / r • 233 \ � �j1/ zsb `�w�Ir. ',� / ----1 -�i —.-- 9 ,lr,cs-e "1 s .i n°..r _� % 253 / si A 25O / / \� l ram- .\ i •_1- ---'--- -----'T.7 . - 1` / &WA. err ter /I/ A.. 1 a 24C .,- \i n,9e.k. \ � .: \1 10G-A .9.,,,. \ \ /07 \.\. City o f 4dring ?lids Vicinity Map Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 / 2aeA .i I 1 '` 4 , / df'-A 1 79 ,CN/ Ar. N! ,? , - �� ;ii/At. Y . I S159... A r / treat A / /61 • P Q,, \ / Q,"c.... fl, ✓/ ri / • Fed - - - - et / 234 255 d„er 0• -ter 930.? 1.9 w ta19 '1t K.r4 7f 44 • L a\ 1 Lem .r 1 n N. eat, k 1.., 47 f Ld574c. 4 .j f 74274. 2te•C I }, T 313.14, A _ J err \,, rem �s. // 4�i+a us �..... 9:S/we \ \ �%/ 1 ; • 6 \'• 4 ii 1 \\ \\/ / J I I Cali / e 101 &Ise A.. a� + 'A 1�• ' 1 /04-a sue« --- �: /04-A tII as-2 %Tr 9 1 1 (• 1�1 soi:k )lr a s >a / / / / / ✓ \fi / -{ • AlIfas /./Sals / er-, , •ssM J..r I SSA. Ar t ) rot tm O• 61 G0,7,k ti V .J / / I / 94 Sans... 93 Atom 7 s99'A / l /04AJ� / don AC, / A73-8 . SACIAr. /•// 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CA 90274 CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 SITE Ca) - APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: • 0/ A/ APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section 1. 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 r„J Printed on Recycled Paper, • • 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" (Califomia Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of Califomia, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A. proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hoteVmotel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.595 • • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A x _ Historical Report Archaeological Report _ Paleontological Study _ Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map — Fiscal Impact Analysis _ Air Quality Report _ Hazardous Materials/ Waste IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or. mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR cam,., �--- USignature] INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 • • 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. B. Inroads Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 )NII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-6 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-7 ❑ I1 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 0 ® ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p 0 0 0 tI ❑ 0 ® 0 • • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 ❑ ❑ IEI identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 0 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 0 El the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 0 El species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 IEI 0 ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ t1 • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO, 595 ❑ 0 0 1333 ❑ ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ © 0 0 ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ O ® 0 1-9 • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or • waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ,IKI ❑ ❑ o o o 0 a VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0 O ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XL NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 D ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ 0 0 D ❑ ® 0 0 ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ D 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ D 0 ❑ 0 • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? $chools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 El rgi El ❑ ❑ ❑rgi ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ • • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-14 ❑ 0 El O ❑ 0 f® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ EXI o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ❑ O ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ O ❑171❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods'of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-15 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 0 © 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 4, ' ', 6 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • • 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. The sports court 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 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern Califomia, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future rrnstruction these will occur in order I-17 to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be Tess than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform withlocal ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be Tess than significant. Item Xl. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be Tess than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. 1. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect t o the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • • City 0/ 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 Agenda Item No.: 3-A Mtg. Date: 10/27/99 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER ZONING CASE NO. 595 AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. MR. AND MRS. DON SLAUGHT, 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH. DATE: OCTOBER 27,1999 This item was continued this afternoon's meeting for the purposeof conducting a field review of the property. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, view the subject property, take any testimony and continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for Monday, November 8, 1999. CRN:mlk slaught.sta2ft y1, Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Cry Rolling ii& 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 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 10/11/99 DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595; AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248- B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South. BACKGROUND 1. An appeal regarding Zoning Case No. 595 was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a public hearing has been set for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. 2. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-13 on September 21, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at an existing single family residence. The Commission and adjacent property owners expressed concerns regarding Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. The vote was 3-2 with Commissioners Roberts and Sommer voting against the project. Supporting documents are attached to this staff report. The applicants presented topographic, landscape, viewscape, and cut -away landscape and hillside plans; building and grading permits approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Foreman; a letter providing grading history from a former owner, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane; a letter from Mr. John Slaught, applicant's father; and a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, stating that the construction of a sports court pad will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage. Mr. John Slaught and Landscape Consultant Rick Hilliard spoke in support of the project. Copies of the proposed plan submitted by the applicants were endorsed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 OF 6 Printed can Recycled Paper Mr. John Resich, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, photographs and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, existing slope grades, the 1981 grading approvals, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of the property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, real estate values, noise, and the landscape screening and views from his clients' residence of the proposed sports court. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson also spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more landscaping, and more mature California pepper trees be added to the landscape plan. 3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 4. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A. swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 5. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 6. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 7. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 9. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 OF 6 11. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. • 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 OF 6 J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The. property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the appeal and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 OF 6 • • RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Total N/A 14.1% 7.5% 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad ISPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. None & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY N/A Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 OF 6 Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq.ft. pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review • • a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening DM interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 OF 6 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court wilt be 2,800 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review eiiy 0/ leollinf 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 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 10/25/99 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. MR. AND MRS. DON SLAUGHT, 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH. DATE: OCTOBER 25,1999 This item was continued this evening's meeting for the purpose of establishing a field trip. At the last meeting, Wednesday, October 27th at 3:00 p.m. was proposed as the dateand time for a field review of the property. That date and time is acceptable to both the applicant and appellant. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing to Wednesday, October 27, 1999 beginning at 3:00 p.m. at 27 Middleridge Lane South to conduct a field review of this case. CRN:mlk slaught.sta Pririted an Recycled Paper. CIy A tenwee, 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 Agenda Item No.: 6-A Mtg. Date: 10/11/99 DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595; AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 27 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH (LOT 248- B-2-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South. BACKGROUND 1. An appeal regarding Zoning Case No. 595 was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane, on Tuesday, September 21, 1999., In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a public hearing has been set for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. 2. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-13 on September 21, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at an existing single family residence. The Commission and adjacent property owners expressed concerns regarding Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. The vote was 3-2 with Commissioners Roberts and Sommer voting against the project. Supporting documents are attached to this staff report. The applicants presented topographic, landscape, viewscape, and cut -away landscape and hillside plans; building and grading permits approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Foreman; a letter providing grading history from a former owner, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane; a letter from Mr. John Slaught, applicant's father; and a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, stating that the construction of a sports court pad will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage. Mr. John Slaught and Landscape Consultant Rick Hilliard spoke in support of the project. Copies of the proposed plan submitted by the applicants were endorsed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 OF 6 Printed on Recycled Paper. • Mr. John Resich, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, photographs and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, existing slope grades, the 1981 grading approvals, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of the property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, real estate values, noise, and the landscape screening and views from his clients' residence of the proposed sports court. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson also spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more landscaping, and more mature California pepper trees be added to the landscape plan. 3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 4. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangularwedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 5. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 6. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 7. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 9. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 OF 6 • • 11. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the appeal and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 OF 6 SPORTS COURT riEQUES" RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 OF 6 EXISTING The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Total N/A 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South 014000.8 No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq.ft. pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review 7;; RECRpATIONAL GPiIVI,E;COURT, a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g• Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 OF 6 9Op4SE Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review • • City .11 fidt REQUEST FOR APPEAL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, .1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com APPLICATION FILE NO. N �� C .S PROPERTY ADDRESS: % A-4I 3 J oanr•so OWNER: SQ_v.1/411- rc . „ z,\n to Soy\ I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: P i'S� c dT S rc- V \ -tt -A-0 ► S -Z1-�' Ci SIGNED: DATED: (:) FEE: 16 /33.33 (Two-thirds of original application fee.) +r i Printed on Recycled Parley. Memo To: City Council, City of Rolling Hills From: Kenneth J Johnson Date: 09/21/99 Re: Zoning Case No. 595 : 27 Middleridge Lane South This application went through four planning meetings. There has been extensive public testimony and evidence presented reflecting the merits of the proposed development. We live adjacent to the subject property and the proposed location is the primary focal point from every room in our house. Listed below are the primary reasons we are appealing the recent 3 to 2 decision of the Planning commission: 1 The evidence on record does not support compliance with zoning requirements for a recreational game court. The slope is greater than 2:1 and the location of the pad is near the bottom of the canyon. Specifically this application does not meet conditions f, k, & n of the zoning ordinance pertinent to sports courts 2. In our opinion, this application does not comply with zoning ordinance # 17.26.010 (view preservation) as it relates to 29 Middleridge Lane South. Written evidence has been presented from two local realtors and a qualified appraiser detailing the negative impact the proposed development would have on view and property desirability thereby impacting value. 3. Slope stability is undetermined . What we have learned through research and discovery on this issue after four meetings is the following: • Page 1 • • A. The original pad was created by placing fill soil directly over an existing landslide without proper compaction or supervision per county requirements. B. The pad slope per county records was determined to be below the 2:1 required grade. C. Water intrusion into this pad area per a letter to the applicant from Keith Ehlert (engineering geologist) should be avoided due to existing conditions. D. The septic system and seepage pit (4'diameter by 55'deep) is located in the middle of the pad, and transcends directly into the landslide. 4. As a result of the conditions described in #3 above, the report prepared by staff is no longer correct in several assessment areas, particularly section VI, Geology and Soils. The procedures require an applicant to submit or disclose geological hazards 30 days prior to the first planning commission hearing so that staff could prepare an appropriate assessment for review by the members of the planning commission. 5. We would like to see the primary property rights provided for under the current zoning regulations followed in this case and eliminate establishing a precedence for future similar applications. • Page 2 • RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught with respect to real property located at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sports court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1999, June 15, 1999, July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 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: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Section 3. On April 28, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A 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 May 1, 1999. 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 therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 • • Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a sports court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sports court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses i n the community, and the area proposed for the sports court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad that has been legally graded and compacted and will not have a material impact on that property. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed sports court will be modest i n size, constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will replace an existing asphalt parking area, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the sports court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.31 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage and do not propose to grade the sports court area. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardouswaste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 • • F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 595 for a proposed 2,800 square foot sports court, as shown on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise approved by Variance, D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 6, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth i n 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. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with recreation court limitations. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,666 square feet or 11.3% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,416 square feet or 32.3%, coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad shall not exceed 3,250 square feet or 36.6%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9%. J. The area prepared for the sports court shall not exceed 2,800 square feet. K. Balanced cut and fill shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not be required for the project but, any soil preparation for the sports court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the sports court and landscaping. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. P. The sports court shall be screened with 8 foot high fencing on all four sides. Q. The sports, court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs using Carolina Laurel Cherry, California pepper and Xylosma, as described on the proposed landscape plan. R. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court. S. 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. T. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 4 OF 7 • • 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 drainage, 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. U. Noise from sports court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. W. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Y. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the canyon at the west. Z. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AA. During construction, 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 i n 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 'PAGE 5 OF 7 • BB. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. CC. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. DD. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. EE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. FF. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. GG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. HH. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. II. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. JJ. Any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. KK. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. LL. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a drainage, building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 21ST DY 9F SEPTEMBER, 1999. 'a ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: �.i(_ MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta and Witte. NOES: Commissioner Sommer and Chairman Roberts. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. f. .. „.) MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-13. PAGE7OF7 • tigituda PVMP & SEPTIC Way Neoloirassr July 20,1999 Single Family Dwelling 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 fi AUG 17 Tsss CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Re: Location of Private Sewage Disposal System To Whom It May Coxezn: As requested, the private sewage disposal system at 27 Middleridge Ln. South is located on the lower west side of property/access road. The system is composed of a septic tank with 24' manhole access and a 4'x 55' seepage pit, with 4" access riser. If there are additional questions, please contact our office. Rey, 4JNSEPflC SERVICE Nick Dragich Estimator/Supervisor 616 W 6th St., San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 832.4800 Fax (310) 832-3636 sewer Contractor License # 749665 0. vc- cre., tLci . 3 bulk clot-1w 4- trJes4-4-141._ .00 . .1 ode. AO. cots.S 4t) t(')ek..4., 1244,ip . sseprv.y 4 if R-texev trptaPi6E- r 1 I i ➢r A 0. • • '.114 ‘1,1,1j •4 i! 41 : Si; 'r7o."7.'"•"••:•!: .1 • • 4.•4:1'"4t$ '111,1•1,1 71 1 , A AUG n tri 999 C I TY OF ROL. ING • 11:[119.;15,1 l^Wwrgil Nr it,1il':1I hli llll I{l`ilal H 1'll'uIIIFIh'1!�Illl'4, :1[11!illrqrYw'+iT'�PY NiI�'I l�u.� ir,�'rl'4yli fii'u�la�u6� iTd�I;Silih��l? U 1.1 AUG 1 7 1999 °IrY OF ROLLING I-lfLLS • • 1.1,11 Ifill1111,1 ,jili141,1111$1['.1{1[1[ l'1:11,1'1',11,11111':f:1111 .11-ifl'.11:!IIII1r,111.1111ii, ,$lioill:,:,11.0 I li,11,11.11,'(11,1',0:101ilillit!i1J '1,1!iiIIII,Ii1111110.,.!!'..!'Al,,,:),N.1:1,11!111!,,,,,11,i, 11!illi.pii,..11.1:1:„,,I.,,.I'L.,e,11,11,1:.`11!ii11,1111tiill..ilh'41.11, • 1;,.1,1',1,1 .1[111111.01P1:11111.,Ifili! $1 .rt i.1.,IiiIii4dillif,iV.,11,;.:ii4.1‘4i,i.,III .11IIIIIIIIIIIIif';I,1111.R11.4.11,,.1:11,:il'H,!.11,1111,:11:111111111111[1,11INIIIIIIih'11114,11 .„).011P',1, Ililftil,41i,..111]1.41:o111 'i1111,111111[11.111, AUG 1 7 '1999 • ,• GIP(' OF ROLLING FULLS , I • 4 4. d4,1,t,4 :4 • 4, \11 . AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING Filus CI • • ,44,,,,410.114NAVic ACtry 406,1K4t,[40 Irkipprk7 f9CA; 4 goo, AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PV • • AUG 1 P71999 IT OF ROLLING HILLS • .4a 011,k1' AUG 1 7 199 .CPTY OF ROLLNCI HILLS • CD ]EgE V{11i AUG 1 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS • • LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD DEVIRIAN DAVID UTLEY BRIAN S. DETRICK OP COUNSEL HOWARD B. BROWN RON MANDELL DONALD B. DEVIRUW July 23, 1999 DEVIRIAN, UTLEY & DETRICK 317 NORTH BROAD AVENUE WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA 90744 TELEPHONES TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: (310) 830-2323 OR (213) 775-7331 FACSIMILE (310) 830-2219 CENTURY CITY OFFICE 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD. SUITE 2080 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90067 (310) 552-1919 AUG 0 3 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Fly 1. My name is Richard Devirian. I owned 27 Middleridge Lane S. from January 27, 1984 until August 1998 at which time we sold to the Slaught family. My family and I were the first to actually reside in the house. 2. From the beginning of our negotiations, I was aware of Mr. Slaught's desire to put a sports court on the lower pad. It was an important issue for him to be able to create an area for his children to play. 3. It was my understanding that the lower pad had been designed, constructed and approved at the time of my purchase and we did not change or alter the pad during our ownership. Visually it never changed appearance and has remained in its existing condition except for yearly weed abatement. RICHARD DEVIRIAN 6H] • , JUL 2 0 1999 [-] OF ROILING HILLS July 15, 1999 Project No. 37 KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist Mr. Ken Johnson 29•Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPLANATION OF LETTER PROVIDED TO OWNER OF 27 MIDDL LANE SOUTH Rolling Hills, CA The purpose of this letter is to explain to you the purpos letter dated June 15, 1999 that I prepared for your neighbc J.R. Slaught. You asked me if the letter I prepared for Mr. Slaught approval of the geology for a proposed recreational sports My letter dated June 15, 1999 is not an approval of the gec I was asked by Mr. Doug McHattie to prepare a letter f' Slaught discussing the impact construction of a sports court have on an existing ancient landslide that underlies the a the proposed sports court. The existence of the ancient lan is based on work we performed on your property (29 Middler review of published geologic maps, and review of photographs. As indicated in the letter to Mr. Slaught, it is my opinion t drainage improvements are incorporated into the construction sports court, the construction of the sports court would de the risk of the landslide becoming active. As stated letter, any increase in the amount of water entering the lan could cause it to become active. In addition, the letter ind that placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide could the factor -of -safety and result in the landslide becoming a It is my opinion that unless a complete geologic and engineering investigation of the area of the proposed sports is performed, the risk of the ancient landslide becoming act the future cannot be fully evaluated. As indicated in my let Mr. Slaught, I do not know the factor of safety of the a - landslide and no guarantee is expressed or implied tha landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information present this report, please contact our office. spectfully Submitted, W. Ehlert Consulting Engineering Geologist 27520 Hawthorne Boulev`r , #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, C, (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 31 -265-9318 it Jui-20-99 02:10P Ken ohnson e7/20/3.999 15: 45 A 3108 36 ...•.,••• ... • v. re .... • .• ... . I . n **2.1\ i cad . 5,,,..4,,, set -NW 4- 1 Weit4#4.1esig.- Wkk 44. dit) le! tA•1.."\.0)\e. -bcc$4.1.s 4-0 trad..f. .2.4ALe • 4YSpt-r vy 4 ft R'cise te- P :02 PAW. 62/02 tcpalloirt-- o.. •.• J.1•••• 4.1.11,A./......•••••••• rECEEIV9 JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OF ROLLING 1-1v L Gf JUL tSB9 .. l V< 17t t.; , t ) Jt)L 2 0 1771 CITY OF ROLLING trizL.LS 2,7 UL 9 0 1Qr-j-C1 S L JUL 2, 0 19S ti�caj L� ti U-D nkJ i Se.i- -6C4" �7 JUL 2 0 1999 -6esu---°221a JUL 2 0 1999 0 o • EA J. R. SLAUGHHT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 5420 MEADOWDALE LANE • RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90274 • (213) 541.2167 July 20, 19-99 To Whom It May Concern: As Don's father and a licensed real estate broker I spent two years researching properties in our local area for him and his family. An essential criteria, first established, was to find a home that had a large and suitable play area for his four young children. Many suitable homes in other respects were rejected because the yards were not adequate. When the home at 27 Middleridge in Rolling Hills became available for purchase and seemed attractive in many ways, the first concern was a play area and the use of the lower pad for this purpose. It was apparent that even before any offer on the house would be presented that I should ask the Johnson family next door if they would have any objection to a sports court being placed on this lower pad. In answer to the specific question Ken Johnson's response was in a very gracious manner to the effect "no, we would not object to a sports court as long as it was screened with landscaping". There was no statement or even an indication that it would have to be totally screened from "day one". If this had been his statement at the time I would have indicated then and there that this is not practical or reasonable. With my experience as a general contractor and real estate developer building homes and shopping centers for over forty years I know that screening with landscaping without allowing for normal growth does not work. Jamming fully grown trees together would likely cause loss of many of them as well as being prohibitive in cost. I would have advised my son that his new neighbor was not being reasonable in his request. I feel Don and his family probably would not have purchased the subject property and would have continued looking elsewhere. r@EllY9 JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OMING HILLS v Respectfully submitted, John R. Slaught JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OF ROLLING H4LLS uv ED- .5 JUL % 13S9 e:krt Of BOLUI4G01.1.9 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS y. tip`-' raliftftax • agykismwthos • • 1. c•c.,-, L-.,yam- ,y#'.wed: -.�% � --• :OJT - • +�N " • 441 ( tir1� z_ �, P.N. 3798-96 I SCALE 1" = 100' AERIAL PHOTO .AND REGIONAL TC'OGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING SITE AND MAPPED LANDSLIDE RE • • NG P - : -. • . .BUILDING k:.to v r. f : . • FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN % •-• --- ..... _. _. . DRESS M ./ DP LE R-10 477 Mit) E SO. SITE AD TRACT _ NUMBER OWNE MA IL ow".4, AD FESS - _ ITT Q.4111:114,4-cL:f.C74.6" IZE)1• - 6 oft1 • ENGINEER 'RTEGT. T40. '- 4 • • -"77.7--;•1"77-•" • ..-.- N GRADIG RAthif...414-xsa TEL. CONTRACTO ,19 -2 ADDRESS PROPOSED USE OF GRADED SIT(S) Al4A- • • " :" CHECK IF SUPERVISED GRADING ' SIGNATURE '••••-•----.44. OF APPLICANT ;•• •44 ••`.4 ADDRESS HEREBY "ACKNOWLEDGE.THAT I .HAV'E READ THIS APPLICATION -,AND STATE •-•THAT 7.-.THE -ABOVE -1S CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY • ORDINANCES .'•':AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCA- VATING AND -GRADING. • -77.3.t: SIGNATURE RMITTEE . 4 • CUBIC YDS. HANDLED: 4 :--.YV"'•1••:. '1 TtillzAN C HqcIC X:6 LIDA T I ON_ Zii:t7fr",;:m=5.' s • • 1., • • • " a . .•.. • -r .,,,,••,. s TE •—• • .'• : * • ADO-45S 179, ddie 4_1da-e- Alikg LOCALITY • a , eozu, , ,, .. A . '.4- .z:r-.••--,.--;? ikti,..4.„ "-, --- - — -- - . CROSS_ST. . _ ... . - ••=,.,_. -...• :-. .. :. NEAREST . I rms-rmict mo. IMAP NO. •• -•-•I STATE HWY.d P SSED BY -...:r -, • : .- : / 0 • 0 2••• 1 _ _ I YES 0 NO - -: . ••••• USE ZONE SPECIAL - .,_.- -- ••i• ---. -,,:•,,,,,----' --_,-.?..--,---,•464.-/ 12.4 e. CONDITIONS cce-ziemb 4, ... ._. r . C SH 0 OSIT • t-• w•-0 13. EC.O. • • DA Te"?........,Z_;;FL' I.) A LIMITED TIME,PERMI AUTHORIZED MUST BE COMPLETED TIME LIMIT: - EXTENDED EXTENDED TO: INITIAL ' • • DATE ..„. GRD. pREP, : .:; 5r44/if';',. COMPACTION .• REPORT REC'D. • , 1 CERT. REC!1:1." SOP, ENGRS. '• : 7 - ,,, e'.-0,- ....._.-6.--4--1-. 1-,:;'. ,:..-: ---• ' '• - ,, i': " A, *. • „, •,,,,:, ROUGH GRADING '.:-...,—"-; "-L., ' APPROVAL ',..-:::.;.,Y. '!' I' 6 --• . , • • .•-.._ . ' . .•-: :4:al &: PLANT.ING Amp ...=, ...,4 *-........ ... C. oire6r,.......;;," - ..'...;...- • 7.: .:-..-4 ';';..7.Z.:4- 1- SUP. ENGR'S. ''' , . .. FINAL CERT. , • • SURETY BOND RELEASED „J.' •, • P.C. Fee $ T. IGNATURE • •"' - ermit Fee 1. • , Issuance Feel '• 2?..i • Total Fee . , • • '77: rE V4 LIIMTION 77A71.: • 0 r-2` • -• _ : '0 0 • • • • • . • • 4 • • INSPECTION NOTES:V . . . . ....._ • , - , 1' •ii ' . ".'il ' ,r • - . .. . . . .. ,r. ' " ' • i., ....., , '...' -.% -.".• 't,. , •.'" .. .. gc - - .t"....-::.-,--t: V-'‘,..:`..,--, 1%--1- z - • .--,'% it,. •': . - .,, 4,.: ,4:•,--41:-; =4.••••:"-:.-: • --;-r -744:1,47-4. ;$, ----44-,--r-•--",.-• •r-, -..,‘“• • .. . i , xlt:-..7,. 44 ..,:it- - ,.,.,. .) ...7,....--..: -1 '.t.--..:4,-.7 - :7.; -I t . 4.^'.".".=•;'''',...7 '':::..,4- 12.!.*-.Z.C.-'4,.--13. -.1*Z , 77:k " . • . . ._... _ . .... c....: ..., ..,•.-1 ' .7' 7 '.F-:-,;-... 7,7•6•:: ._ . . . ' f,:"..•11..'---f..1.:.t.--':-L-1......:2•.....:.:-:::•_. ' .„.;r ',:.,.:1 .,-...frY...,;X. .... ..'.. ..:,.;.,. ....,., ..; S _..'"ft . -. , • i ''' . - ' - . ' .. . w... • : -.' /7.:4.1.-Po •;44•- 634sz4. 6."...... zfs0-11,_ • " :.•,,-,;:-, .._ • • 0 6 - L s '•••• -1 • . .; _ _ • • - . • c--• ...1 •`, • -•- . . 'E .0 L 0 #J C N D S 0 t •L ° S RE -P ..-R -T S rt 45-17 P R E P A R D 113Yr bA TED RECD A PPRVD M AR K.S ir 4 "44:3 .,11,1". • .;,".4.,,;•?-..k4 A ,E 7A • .<;!... ? . • • A, - ' 7.,?*'Ev$,t •ii '••••"--,'••-•.•• • • ••••.'" • " " '1'•• : • 7" , • • fitr..41 • -<••• ' ••••-? • - rs..) • r-. • I • • -' • . . I . 4.; ; '',.. ';,-.? .‘.. • .A.._, ...:';',:'7W-1:it=4:!.."2,. .• .A. ^Vf.--7a,-...-.A 7•4‘..1:',1';:.',:::4:1'..."-.A'rtrg...:-TirIV.Vri:',:_,...>_,.P...,..ipVt..ke .Pc:, 4 1 ••• :,,,S,t dr* rt."; . • ,-• -$4:::V. . - ,. . • CV 71/ . • • VI • C) • C...) t••:' •—• -1!) • WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION hereby affirm that I hove o certificate of• consent to self' jsure, or a certificate of Workers' Compenstipn Insurance, o' (.certified copy thereof (Sec. 3800, Lab. c.) plicy No Company • ' • Certified copy is hereby furnished. '• ' `I Certified copy is filed with the county building inspec- t—J tion department. ate Applicant r CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (*his section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less.) 1 certify that in the performance of the work f r which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any perso So as to become subject to the Workers' Dole 7 r Applicant NOTICE TO. AP'LICANT: If, after molting this tificate of Exemption, you should become subject to e Workers' kCompensation provisions of the Labor Code, you must forth - .:with comply with such provisions or this permit shall be • „deemed revoked. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION • 1I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. License Number Lic. Class Contractor Dote P❑ I am exempt from the licensing requirements os I am a licensed architect or o registered professional engineer /1 acting in my professional capacity (Section 7051, Business and Professions Code). Lic. or Reg. No. Dotes !I' OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 7031.5, Business and Professions Code): I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Section 7044, Business and Professions Code). I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec- tion 7044, Business and Professions Code). CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097, Civ. C.). Lender's Name Lender's Address I certify that I hove read this application and stale that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all County ordinances and State laws relating to building construction, and hereby ay.tliorize representotives of this County to enter upon the r prop of e--mentioned pection purposes. • Ogre gjed Sinnnn,rn of Afinllrnnt nr Anent nnta • r 111m1,P•.I1'" APPLICATU- FOR B!)ILDING PERMIT ' -COUNTY OF LOBAN GELES BUILDING AND SAFETY • if i FOR APPLICANT TO FI MAUS 27 Mi ddl eri dqe CITY Rolling Hills Est. DP 90274 SIZE OF LOT 1 1/2 acres ON LOTs. -0- TRACT 26113 I BLOCK OWNER Houshang 4!eki 1 i many manner nsati Laws. •••74DDRESS 609 Deep Valley Dr. --CITY Rolling Hills Est. ARCHITECT OR .ENGINEER Young & Assoc. ( -ADDRESS 118 S. Catalina CONTRACTOR f)tynar/R1 rlrnr ADDRESS CITY - SIZEFT O 4398 IS RIIES - DESCRIPTION OF WORK Construct si 1 residence wi �, USE OF - EXISTING BLDG. ---- APPLICANT t (PRINT)Houshang .1 ILOT NO. 2 NO. 541-9819 ZIP 90274 No. 376-8803 A R.B.. CA TEL. NO. LIC. NO. LIC. CLASS NO. OF FAMILIES 1 • ncile family th attached gar. CHECK ONE NEW . ADD ALTER• REPAIR DEMOL Weki l i N0.541-9819 ADDRESS609 Deer, Valley QiciammlilH PRESENT BUILDING ADDRESS - LOCALITY MOVING CONTRACTOR - ADDRESS REQUIRED SET BACK FRONT P.1 SIDE P.L. YARD HWY 11. TEL. NO. ' ABDDR SSNG .y7 ytA ddJ&r ADDRESS �C x �/ LOCALITY , / !L-- NEAREST ' - CROSS ST.. ASSESSOR• MAP BOOK PAGE (PARCEL USE ZONE le4"S DISTRICT - is - d� MAQI • NO. SPECIAL CONDITIONS G CONST. STATISTICAL CLASSSIIPICATION CLASS NO 0 DWELL. UNITS SEWER MAP VALUATION $ /sir .0 - ❑ DATE �' • 'f FINAL f A j°e, f" /9 /( . • fl TOTAL SETBACK FROM EXIST. PROP. LINE WIDTH P.C. Fee $ al Investigation Fee Permit Fee /,z2aP•a Issuance Fee / 1 r Q 1 / Total Fee .23 • 67) SEE REVERSE FOR EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE 1—.,l_ . ROUP; TYPE FIRE PROCESSED BY ZONE 47,3 -1/1 3' APT. IC& DO, VALIDATION _Li .!f ;4 V s. • Os ft . ROLLING HILLS COMMCOMMIJPIITY ASSCIATION • BuildingPrnptrty Juspectiull s co. • Inspector • • KEITH W . EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist June 15, 1999 Mr. J.R. Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ^ P e r (13.9 Q JUN 1 5 1999I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hv SUBJECT: INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PROPOSED TENNIS COURT 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA I have reviewed the area of the proposed tennis court. The proposed tennis court will be located within an ancient inactive landslide. It is my opinion that construction of the tennis court and improving drainage in the area of the ancient landslidewill decrease the risk of the landslide re -activating in the future. It has been my experience that. in most cases, ancient landslides re- activate as a result of introduction of water into the landslide. As part of the proposed improvements, providing adequate drainage to reduce the amount of water entering the landslide area is imperative if reducing the risk of future landslide movement is to be achieved. In general, it is my opinion that construction of the tennis court will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. The opinions expressed above are based on site observations, and work I performed on the neighboring property (29 Middleridge Lane South). No guarantee of future site performance is expressed or implied. I do not know what the factor -of -safety of the existing landslide is. Any proposed grading that results in placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide likely will lower the factor -of - safety and and may result in activation of the landslide. As such, no fill should be placed in the upper portion of the landslide. In addition, the proposed improvements should not include lawn areas. It has been my experience that excessive watering of lawns can re -activate landslides. Any increase in the amount of water entering the landslide will lower the factor -of -safety and could de -stabilize the landslide. 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 • P.N. 4202-99L Page 2 It is my opinion that although construction of the proposed tennis court in conjunction with appropriate drainage improvements will lower the risk of landslide activation, no guarantee is expressed or implied that the landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please contact my office. Respectfully submitted, g Geologist �'�91OF1,'a.Z1F a • E El rg r JUN 151999 June 14th, 1999 fly I had a call recently from a friend who questioned whether a sports court, sited in a primary view direction, would have a negative impact on the value of his home. It is my opinion, based on 12 years in real estate in Palos Verdes, that there could be a substantial loss of value to his home depending on the visibility of the sports court from his home. Views are one of the major determinants of value. In fact, the City view preservation ordinance recognizes "the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the city". It goes on to say that the views are a "special quality of property ownership" for many homes in the city. It is my feeling that the above is especially applicable in this case. The existing (very) rural canyon view with the city as the backdrop, would lose much of it's dramatic appeal if the focal point of the immediate view was instead replaced with concrete and chain link. In order to retain as much value as possible as provided by the current view, my suggestion would be to try to mitigate the negative impact of the sports court with screening vegetation tall enough to hide the sports court from view, yet not so tall as to create it's own problem of view obstruction. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS To Members of the Planning Commission - Sincerely, tu,S- Charlie Raine ReMax Palos Verdes • • uj: n5 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. Ry F� Fred Sands PALOSVERDES REALTY 16 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, Califomia 90274 Telephone (310) 378-1907 Facsimile (310) 378-2158 June 10, 1999 - City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission Lane South Ken Johnson, owner of the above property, has asked formy opinion as to whether. t Deed recreational sports court to be built on the adjacent property would detract from t :et.vaiue'ofnis .roperty. r...tk<c.�'�•gc:�rm'-rtii.?'ou.�,Te,.,: ...,e:.'. ...'•�£EtF'., '�"'; ... :i.,..... ,:•. Y ....._ : ., :-. y opinion is upon my 12 years of experience as a licensed real estate agent on the Palos: erdes Peninsu1a. This experience has included 26 transactions involving residences in the olling. tills -where I represented either the buyer or seller. I presently am affiliated with F Palos 'Verdes Realty as Director of the Estates Division. • r.,:, ,'.,,,v:.... •..' my opinion the proposed 'sports court will detract from the value of Mr Johnson's prop iiMarily'for theAfollowing two f . ,•reasons `::'E :xf t $ v,;; ` :. ' ' , Y • The sports _court, as proposed, will be in clear view from, each and every room of Mr. Johnson's home. This situation will result in a troublesome`Ioss ofprivacy to The Johnson family. Rolling Hills, of course, is renowned for its privacy and this is a primary objective of all potential Rolling Hills buyers. The sports court would cause such an intrusion on this privacy that it logically would negatively impact the desirability and hence the market value of Mr. Johnson's property. N. The sports court will contaminate the sweeping and tranquil views of ocean and city lights that the subject property enjoys by creating a significant distraction in the foreground: In all likelihood, this distraction would become an annoyance to most people especially when the court is in use. The quality of the view is a critically important factor in establishing value of properties on the Peninsula. A distraction such as the proposed sports court would substantially reduce the value of #29 Middleridge Lane South. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Tillson"'' Director, Estate Division KT: fin '' . Independently owned and operated Golden State AppriOals, Inc. .A ORl4ISM. 1N(.: 197Z0 votari Blvd,,; to C. Wood arn).:Hil t cA :91,364 -'"Phoue (310) 205-0097 Phone (818)', 587-9494 Phone (213) 877-180$ .. . Rai . (818) 8834969 June 9, 1999 Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Diminution of Value 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RI/ The above referenced subject property was appraised by our firm on December 11, 1998. We will refer to our file and photographs for the purpose of supporting our statements in this letter. It is our opinion that a sports court blocking or deterring from the overall unobstructed view of the city or canyon will cause a diminution in value as a result of its construction. The overall marketability will be reduced due to the reduction in appeal. This is especially true if the sports court is the primary focal point and can be viewed from every room in the house. There is a limited supply of homes with unobstructed views. Thus, the value of the view to the overall value is a greater percentage. The only potential cure would be to allow a sunken sports court not obstructing the city view and sufficient landscaping to eliminate it as a focal point. Sincerely, Law(ence �'ynes; Appraiser AAKO • GEOTECHNICAL'� ,�����-��' DEC 0 7 se ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 1818 E. BALL ROAD / ANAHEIM, CA 92805-5977 / (714) 635-6570 Toll Free: (800) 422-4117 Faver Construction ' 1600 Cabrillo Avenue Torrance, California 90501 9 Z- Job #3841- F1-83 November 29, 1983 Subject: Evaluatio cf L'wer Graded Pad Downslope from Existing Resi denc ddl eri dge Lane South, Rolling Hills 1=a;,s, , Los ,ArIgele aunty, California. References: 1. outh Bay Engineering Corp., "As -Built Grading Plan," dated August 14, 1981. 2. Young & Associates, "Building Plans, Sheets 1-18," date printed January 22, 1981. 3. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Proposed Residential Construction, Lot 2, Tract 26113, Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, California," dated September 29 & December 30, 1980, Project'. Reference 2a78-02. 4. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Soil Creep, Lot 2, Tract 26113;...," dated February 5, 1979, Project Reference 936.-72. 5.. Lockwood S.i.ngh & Associates, "Report .of Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 2,. Tract 26113, ... ," dated December 21, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. Gentlemen: Presented herewith. are th.e results of our evaluation of the lower as -graded pad downslope from the existing residence. Our findings and conclusions are presented based on a field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The subject property was graded and the residentialstructure constructed in 1981, The grading consisted of cut and fill grading to construct two level pad areas. The upper pad in the eastern end of the property had the residential structure and driveway constructed upon it. The structure is reportedly supported on a caissons and grade beam:=-' foundation founded into competent bedrock. P i@IJN-Fn) JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS • #3841-4,3 -2- Based on our review of the referenced reports, there was no 'engineering supervision done during the grading of the site. Therefore, none of the fill soil placement was supervised or certified andlall structures were required to be supported through all fill soils and into competent s, bedrock. A field investigation consisting of ,a site inspection and subsurface exploration was conducted on November 10, 1983 and November 15, 1983. Two exploratory trenches were excavated using a rubber tire backhoe. The soils were logged by our field geologist. *The approximate locations of th.e trenches are shown on the plot plan. The trench logs are presented in Appendix A. Th.e trenches werebackfilled upon completion of ours investigation. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained at frequent intervals. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a drive tube in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-.2937-71 (76). In -,place density tests were also taken using the Sand Cone Method in accordance with AST1.1 D-1556-64 (74). All:soil sampros were: tr.:ansported :to:our. laboratory. See Appendix B for laboratory test results. Based on the referenced preliminary geotechnical report (reference no. 5), the original natural earth material conditions consisted 'of a clay topsoil and subsoil that overlaid the bedrock to depths of 21 to 17 feet. Underlying bedrock consists of siltstone and shale, slightly bentonitic. Grading in 1980 added a maximum of 20 feet of fill in the lower graded pad area. Based on our review of the referenced reports and our subsurface exploration,- proper keys and benches were not cut into competent bedrock prior to fill placement. Fill soils were apparently placed directly on theoriginal topsoil. Relative .compaction of the fill soils were ifound to be 85 to 88% of maximum density. 'The original topsoil underlying the fill soils was: found to be moist to wet and soft to slightly firm, indicating insufficient reworking of the topsoil prior to fill placement and questionable competency. The fill slope descending along the west end of the pad is finished at an inclination as steep as.1.7 to 1 (horizontal:vertical). The, slope surface areas a.re soft to depths of at least 18 inches and do not have good surface compaction. A stability analysis was performed on the existing fill conditions to determine the degree of stability. Calculations were performedlbased on results of direct shear tests presented in Appendix B and the laboratory test results in the referenced reports. The stability analysis indicates that the lower pad area is grossly stable with a safety factor of 1.90- and1.13 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. AAKO OEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. #3841- FF3 -3- Although the lower pad is determined to be grossly stable, there is a potential for some minor downhill creep of the fill soils due to the low relative compaction of the fill soils, the 1.7:1 steepness of the fill slope, and the soft soil conditions in the fill slope face. Based on these aforementionaLeIngTons and the incompetency_of the original topsoi l s_ underl yi ng the fill so iTi „the_lnler Dad area is det�r� mined to be_un.suitabl.e__for, the support of_any_ tructur-es,. This lower pad area may be safely used for non-structural purposes such as horse corrals or landscape areas without detrimental effects or safety hazards. To increase the overall stability of this lower pad area, the following recommendations may be followed: 1. The fill slope surface should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, properly benched, backfilled and recompacted to at least 90% of maximum density. The slope surface should be compacted by either overfilling and cutting back to expose the compacted core or by suitable mechanical methods. 2. The pad drainage should be properly designed to ensure surface drainage away from th.e slopes and off the pad in a non- erodable manner. 3. Th.e slopes should be planted with a suitable deep rooted, drought resistant ground cover type vegetation to enhance the surficial stability of the slope. Additionally, we recommend the use of deep rooted trees and bushes to enhance the surficial stability at greate.r depths. To obtain a structural pad suitable for the support of a structure, all the fill soils would have to be -removed and the original topsoil over - excavated down to competent bedrock., which would result in excavations as great as 28 feet in depth. A keyway and benches would have to be excavated into the bedrock prior to fill placement and fill soils would have to be placed in horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 inches, properly watered or aerated to achieve optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of maximum density. The fill slope must be finished at an inclination not steeper than 2:1 (.horizontal:vertical). Our findings andconclusions are based on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied nor made. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ifN<IIITAm-m wr #3841 4083 -4- Respectfully submitted,- AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any further questions regarding this.matter, please contact this office. ERY,.R.C.E. 24711 (CD, GEOTECHNICAL AAKO ErJrwcyEERI �^� #3841-F1-83 -5- APPENDIX A TRENCH LOGS AAK GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING rrv.ICI II T&A11-C ITV' • Logged By: RW #3841-.3 TRENCH LOG NO. T-1 Trench Orientation* N580W Client: Faver Construction EARTH MATERIALS y w +4 VI RI N 1— ro U U O O O +3 0 4) •Q to CO \ N O O O +3 0 (n 4-) 4-3 1— 4-3 •r 1� N •r • N E 4-3 O •r— ••— In 3 s.. a U -C Qf 4) •r • •r r- + � O 3 y 1— Vf ✓ C >a O N O RJ 4-3 •Q 3'a "w O r- >> o i O +3 to .0 +3 r- +3 L N +3 o'Q C 3 J • E O O L +3 w .a +-3 +-► r— (n . (n r— •e-• L •0 1— LL E p E SCALE: 1 5 ' • -6- Job No.• Date: 11/15/R3 Site: Middleridge Lane South; Rollins Hills 1 1 1 1 1 1 r _ n � 0 io e N Et z`4 O in • Logged By RW #3841-F-83 TRENCH LOG NO.- T-2 Trench Orientation. N65oW Client Faver Construction EARTH MATERIALS r- 0 siltstone/sandstone SCALE:1"a S' GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION a 0 a E me o LI 0 0 41 - 7- Job No.: Date: 11/15/83 Site: Middleridne Lane South, Rollino Hi11� 0 • • #3841-F1-83 -8- APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS • #3841-F1-83 Job #: DIRECT SHEAR TEST Client:___Site: Technician:„4f , Date: //—/� • 53 soil: <1 L ey G c.4'i Sam le: T�t /'o,r�; f p I- � � � c� /i �.✓ 1 Test Method: ASTM D-3080-72 -9- Sample Dimensions: Diameter: r .`7 . Height: % �' '~ Initial Dry Density: 7/. ', o c-f Initial Moisture Content: Me °,Y Ultimate Value: 0: C: Peak Value: 0: L--° C: '3io ,,s..c- Residual: 0: 2 I ° C: Zzo 47s4- 250C "^ 206 • N i 0 0 0 0 100C a L N L ro .� 50f N 15001 0 RCS OVAL VALVE 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Bearing Pressure (Pounds Per Sq. Ft.) o Indicates soil sample at field moisture condition. s Indicates soil sample at saturated moisture condition. A fur GEOTECHNICAL r. #3841-F1-83 APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY -10- AAKOAITENEER'`"" L.._ EJVGI ? Go --- ? 50 --- 740 --- 30 --- 72,0 --- 7ro — 700--- G9o— GRAPE, ExlsTl der F i L- 6 D ORrG L Tops OIL 13E1211o01c oRIt INAL SoILif;EPKOU- IN'i'ECLFAGE GT1 N. A -A Sco►LE; I"�_.30'._...... SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS A5S1;v1 sou-. PARAMv?FAJ I ps a ri_; c /3'' G= ,-,-OAS T £8-Td-Tti88ff • Surcharge Area r 0 0 Safety Factor Section Slice p,s . f . Ft 2 �.c.f W lb. eC 0 C WSin a a CosWCos2a Tan II , ::LCosO( a F=Ma Static Seismic 3e,11 31 A ABK'A 2Ga lop 2G000 I8' Ig' ;zo 744O 54430 / / /1760 gcc-'Q'B LGo 100 G600o 14' )3" 2�0 /�490 J4350 41 8i0 �Dc'c_ COGNo (,G0o0 10' I2' 224 112,9O 7473a 43 932o t' 1 SSoa a �44� Ga 3n834` ,JS� 23'7 /. 90 /J R • #38411-83 -12- APPENDIX D PLOT PLAN V GEOTECHNICAL A A Mk/ MCC ERINc ., 5KISTI NCr oRI6rINAL FfLI— 700— t90 — DR ri MA L ToPs of l 13EpRocK. oRICrINAL SOIL/gEPRoc$- IN'i'ERFAc 6GTIo N A -A Title ScAL.E ; 30' Sec, -ION A -A AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Client Site 1818 E. Sall Road FA46+2 CooVIR?u -r,or+ 13 Pleobt.eRiv6e 1., Arie S.iPTH Anaheim, CA 92805 r'Zot-t.irsa 1-1 uu-'-s ES".416S1 C, . (714) 635-6570 Job No. IDwg. No. I • .I • • r a • • • PLoT PL.ArI Client FAVER GoNsT2ut7/ar4 4v 760 • —780 5�' 7 6 .�7 70.�_ Site 13 MiDPt.CR►o4f, LANs 5ou11 i got-L4 N A N i..S 06TA7e'S, CA Scale 1'1%3011:- Date II.29�g3 0 _` AAKOG� NEERIINGAL CONSULTANTS. INC. 1818 E. Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92805 (714) 635-6570 Job No. 3s41- 1'93 I• • rig. No. oS2- t-. . ;OILS ENGINEERING REVIEW S};E `tJ List 12.02 • COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER Design Division SOILS ENGINEERING SECTION SHEET / OF / 27 Middleridge Lane gouth DISTRIBUTION Location Lot 2, Tract 26113. Rolling Hills ❑ Plan Check - Building and Safety Developer/Owner Paver Construction ❑ Site Engineer Engineer 0 Geologist Geologist 0 Soils Engineer Soils Engineer AARC° Gpntenhni nal Engineering 0 Geology Section (Job 3841-F1-83) $ Oeoingy RPei:i nn 0 distribution 0 (PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S)) REVIEW OF: ❑ Grading Plan No. ❑ Geologic Report Dated ❑ Other ❑ Refer to references in review dated ❑ Building Plan No. Dik Soils Report Dated 29 November 19e3 ACTION: ❑ Plans and Reports are approved. 0 Before approval the following information is required: REMARKS: Reports are approved su-�ject to conditions below. The gross stability calculations of the lower pad area are approved. However, as recommended by the soils engineer, this area is unsuitable for support of any structures and should be used for non-structural purposes only. The soils engineer also should evaluate the nature of any hazards created by (aG the soft fill slopes descending from the lower pad and (b) the driveway fill wedge between the house and lower pad. Hazards should be removed as recommended by the soils engineer and approved by the City and County. Prepared by Reviewed by 0 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Date 13 De iabwi.• 19 • GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET. .1 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEER -FACILITIES 4 Site Address ; Environmental Development .Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY,SECTION 738-2161 rip- g 1 1 Location //,..7 .7. he • • Developer/Owner V ! '1..: Engineer r • „ Geologist Soils Engineer Review of: Action: Remarks: • .e• * • • in "— ' 1. •:7 • - " PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Grading Plan No. Building Plan No Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dote'l Other 0 Plan is approved 0 Plan approved subject to conditions below ( : Prepared b.: , • „ SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: Li Plan Check 2 Dist. Engineer . J Developer -Owner . 0 Site Engineer • Geologist 0 Soils Engineer 0 Geol. Sect. File Grading Section El Plan is not approved for reasons below 0 Submit plans for recheck • e' • ! " • •t- -r- • . k:: C2 C .7) ‘,/ ri .a• r•-• • ; st r I ......,.— ! --/-• r_ . '.1./ tfi ::— fr; C k.I ,..--r---* CV ; . 'I • • , rr....r „ ; L-i -", i •i ..._ . .,„ . ,.,..,,...• . •e....7 I-- ' e —171 f i .:- it (.... v.'er ,- f e...-: r t r • ' L, ! • r L - i (It :'7 I r ! 1 -1 . • --1- t .: V rt CI I t.i. C_I ...5 ..-- ....---. )1L'i 6 0 - '1 Irl L. .1. i 1 ,... ,.. , n If; ..-',% c• : % 4; r :1- % C7. t 1 ..7 1 tt • r.) r. Reviewed by 51= • not. / r - ; ' • : • , . . — Site Address % Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Review of:0 Action: Remarks: ,GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHE COUNTY OF, LOS•ANGELES A" DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEER -FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION 974-,7338 ;fig em.. /i O/Ir/ 40/.4 / YIirTxrv/l.? is JAI", ,-, m ikr .Se ri 1,9/nne . if" etteV- PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORTS) Grading Plan No. Building Plan No. Geologic Repot Dated Soils Report Doter' Other 4t2V4 ❑ Plan is approved ❑ Plan approved subject to conditions below //.e Prepared by 1-0 c if/n ,&. /7i: /77US74 e. ,) / • 71 _a / L? / /"JC- �e o /c ! / J SHEET / OF / DISTRIBUTION: ❑ Plan Check �] Dist. Engineer ❑ Developer -Owner ❑ Site Engineer Geologist I] Soils Engineer frj Geol. Sect. File m Grading Section J Plan is not approved for reasons below J Submit plans for recheck J r Y/-' wrc� e..7`1 c/ ere ��tom:• cA.-cer/ c/ i e/14.7/l-:r-c; %;!-/r •'F/?r� 77i/c //i ./%-7L'.: ,.. //:-..;c //- �'t't r'i /, c'1 J i i/ I<.iJt/r;/ r? P Y7 .Y/7 e. t-v• /cO /-7 CIS ri C 17 //-/ P u c .-/ c/ (c c./o r, ii- r7 !C� /f: 7/11, C.. if f-C • / n /oIv e- MI et 5 A cr ,-? r.11 c •r r P�. �•, /1) ,.� / /7 e C r'r• c/ /s• • / /`r., r_, G S / � - ' VI 7 / /7 r' e' ii".-r el'/1 r V/ r i e•e tl/ 0 % W/// Ci u» .S 4 .Reviewed byr r- Lockwood -Singh Altssociates g A CORPORATION Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists 9977 Jefferson Boulevard • Culver City, California 90230 Telephone: (213)870-7335; (213)836-5431 R. BRUCE LOCKW000. R.E.G. AWTAR SINGH. C.E. February 27, 1979 Southstone, Inc. c/o Dr. Robert E. Norcross 3655 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 209 Torrance, California 90505 Project Ref. 936-72 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Pv SUBJECT:, ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION DATED DECEMBER 21, 1977 LOT 2, TRACT 26113 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: This addendum is submitted in response to a question raised by Mr. R.E. Smith, Engineering Geology Section, County of Los Angeles, in a Geologic Review Sheet dated February 8, 1979. The Review Sheet stated that, "The area of the corral has been shown as a landslide on the California Division of Mines and Geology map and as an area of slope wash and creep by the consultants., Will a buttress be required for the 2:1 slope?" The January 3, 1979 grading plan by L.A. Young, A.I.A. $ Associates shows that the proposed development in the area of the corral will be mainly fill slopes. It has been recommended in our referenced report that a key of 3 feet deep into competent material be provided at the toe of the fill slopes and that the compacted fill be benched into competent material as filling progresses. This will essentially eliminate most of the slope wash and creep soils in the area. Cut slopes planned in the area will remove some of the slope wash and creep soils. The amount remaining is not considered to be significant and no JUL 161970 J. • • Proj. Ref. 936-72 Norcross - Middleridge -2- February 27, 1979 buttress is considered necessary. The proposed grading should improve the stability of the area. The resulting graded slopes are considered satisfactory for the intended use. Very truly yours, LOCKWOOD-SINGH $ ASSOCIATES Awtar Singh CE 17727 AS/RBL:jmf CD, (f? „bezer )14-01/ R. Bruce Lockwood CEG 204 EDWARD CARSON BEALL, AIA AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE EDWARD CARSON BEALL, AICP, AIA GEORGE C. SHAW, NCARB, AIA MILES E. PRITZKAT SUSAN R. BEALL, ASID JULIE HEINSHEIMER, ASLAA INTERIOR DESIGN LANDSCAPE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 14, 1999 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: In reference to Zoning Case #595 Slaught Residence 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) Through much research of the nursery stock available from the largest growers in LA County, T have determined that the best plant material available to screen the Slaught tennis court is as follows: PRUNUS CAROLINIANA - CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY As upright shrub, it can be well -branched and used as formal, clipped hedge or tall screen to 20'; trained as tree it will become broad -topped and reach 35-40'. Densely foliaged with glossy green, smooth -edged; small creamy white flowers in Feb. to Apr.; small black fruit. Needs no water once established. Immediately available from Norman's Nursery in a 24" box tree, 8-9' tall x 3' round XYLOSMA CONGESTUM - XYLOSMA (zy-LOZ-muh) Usually a loose, graceful, spreading shrub that grows to 8-10' tall and as wide or wider. Can be used as a single or multitrunked tree, arching shrub, espalier on wall or fence, clipped or unclipped hedge. Leaves are shiny, yellowish -green, clean and attractive; new growth bronzy; flowers insignificant, rarely seen. Moderate watering. Immediately available from Boething Treeland in a 24" box tree, 5.5-6' tall x 2,5-3' round Yours truly, EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES einsheimer JH: smc 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 FAX: (310) 375-9530 (310) 378.1280 E-Mail: ecbeall@laol.com • City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South 1 MAY 1 4 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS r4v Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which I received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated When the original developer built 27-Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. • 110 — 2 — May 13,1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appnapriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planniig commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenneth J c Don Slaught Nva ? spQ os6' i '74),e „p. z�t VAMNit,e• Ur. WAueAVINJer tkulta•;$ • • . City O/ /,//n INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hilis. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rollins Hilis. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: ogo-L,,c4a— Lola Ungar, Plahriing Director Printed on Hocycled PatKit / ab x • T 11,CT. JJ 169•B G}..7.7c D. R. 150 - J • / TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS / / a F s i 253 \ '� /� �\ ` ` % /: 255 /e IG9-5 'n1 �`. a?,n�w ~__/ �_` } ll7i� 250 /+ • \\ `V 255 / "� 1 ( f„e«il \ , e sm.K -i 1 �'� 1\ i \ \ c,rr [or ♦w Am. 1, // zed► t si \ l F•.. �� ..x.• �. rt'> ems\ /h / (° / . / .,� r• t_ - / ¢'\ / • // 4, I!--.1"... //I• ` s+ r, w.r / ,�' / / iKie% . \ ` p / / '. ; 11\ a \ \ ;y�9 / �tisi \ = -'�9 / /'�� \ \ .4., ` ` /cs` 1 1 \` sly 1 ilvrvin./7//: r:itt.7g15:... ( • 1 `=4 N \ \ \ / i / tr., I IO .9G"/ 1, C • / 96.2 \\ rN.I. I2 11, v/ 1 N. \ I I NI V / \\ 246 • I • /'- �\ ` �tiQi N. \ 2 r9e .k. \ \ 1 /0Z 102 � . ,, 26 \ ` , ` �5' os ; e4sa se. \i S. d % ►a \1 ++ 1 II O I } �� N. �L �\ 1\ // •/• I ' T \- • 1 •f i 7ue►7-_ tsaA •• Y s \` 1� �K 4.334 r- • /; qa 1 — •— • , er,•• 6 �` 1�-p.� e Cab 245•A \ ,A Gees, /04 -Q 106 D ♦ 11 _ ___,_ / rorr ,4 • / / 1\ 81 conAc. Teti o 1 j 106 ` ` \ \ \ \\--=-7 /04-a /j/ 10b.�B "✓ • \\ • •• `• 10641 ✓\► / 4/ ;a /// / --/ 2 -. // 1 radii 3 // / i- % \ 1.\1 /07 City of Rolling Has Vicinity Map Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA /0• 4-A e % �T 174 103-9 m 111 /04 A'ti 1 1 439 -1. 1,1 sosr* 94 SAC! we. rr / .4. • TT N. t4T1 k. t4t7.4. • / s..: 1 14 • /038 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CASE NO. ►. ZONING CASE NO. 595 90274 SITE 1 • • City o` Rotting .NA APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 h s Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed 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. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A x _ Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study _ Line of Sight Exhibits _ Visual Analysis _ Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis _ Air Quality Report _ Hazardous Materials/ Waste • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR tt�Jul, Itct • • 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. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of .each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? 11I. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 o ® ❑ ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ® ❑ $C..?...9 • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 ❑ ❑ identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 ❑ ❑ identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 ❑ 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 0 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 El 0 ❑ I J ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ID ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18I 0 0 ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ © ❑ I-9 T'bi • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 O 0 0 O 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Igi ❑ 0 0 O ❑ 0 0 El ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 1-10 • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 O 0 0 LJ rgi O 0 IEJ 0 O o o m 0 0 0 El O 0 0 0 O 0 0 MI 'I-1 1 cc03 • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ® ❑ 0 ❑ 0 © 0 ❑ 0 RI ❑ lgl 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-12 ®..1 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ l] ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire protection? 0 ❑ ❑ IXI Police protection? 0 0 0 Schools? ❑ 0 0 p Parks? 0 0 0 O Other public facilities? 0 0 0 El XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-13 O © 0 0 • • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 El 0 El ❑ 0 ❑ IEI 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ D Eg] o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ O ❑ O 0 O 0 IX! 0 1-14 CCi....)'6 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-15 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ix! ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • • 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. The sports court 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered, potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. 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 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction 'Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. • HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be Tess than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. • • Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be Tess than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be Tess than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling. Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19( /01 • • Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be Tess than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect t o the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 C14 0/ RO/A JUL 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 Agenda Item No.: 4.A. Mtg. Date: 9/27/99 DATE: SEPTEMBER 27,1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 99-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught, 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-13 on September 21, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at an existing single family residence. The Commission and adjacent property owners expressed concerns regarding Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. The vote was 3-2 with Commissioners Roberts and Sommer voting against the project. An appeal has been filed in this case. Therefore, supporting documents will be included in the appeal staff report. The applicants presented topographic, landscape, viewscape, and cut -away landscape and hillside plans; building and grading permits approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Mr. Roger Vink, RHCA Architectural Foreman; a letter providing grading history from a former owner, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane; a letter from Mr. John Slaught, applicant's father; and a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, stating that the construction of a sports court pad will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage. Mr. John Slaught and Landscape Consultant Rick Hilliard spoke in support of the project. Copies of the proposed plan submitted by the applicants were endorsed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South. Mr. John Resich, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, photographs and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 OF 6 try Printed on Recycled Paper, • • existing slope grades, the 1981 grading approvals, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of the property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, real estate values, noise, and the landscape screening and views from his clients' residence of the proposed sports court. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Johnson also spoke in opposition to the project. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more landscaping, and more mature California pepper trees be added to the landscape plan. 3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructedwith a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 4. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 5. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 6. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 7. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 9. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 11. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 OF 6 • • Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 OF, 6 • • installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 99-13. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 OF 6 • • J RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SOFT. CORRAL). STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 OF 6 The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Total N/A 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior No retaining walls for the court proposed. e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% Conforms with lot coverage limitations structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and Planning Commission will review natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 OF 6 Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review • • RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught with respect to real property located at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sports court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1999, June 15, 1999, July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 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: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Section 3. On April 28, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A 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 May 1, 1999. 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 therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 • • Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a sports court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sports court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located .uses in the community, and the area proposed for the sports court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad that has been legally graded and compacted and will not have a material impact on that property. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed sports court will be modest in size, constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will replace an existing asphalt parking area, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the sports court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.31 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage and do not propose to grade the sports court area. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 • • F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 595 for a proposed 2,800 square foot sports court, as shown on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared. and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges . granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, • has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 6, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with recreation court limitations. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,666 square feet or 11.3% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,416 square feet or 32.3%, coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad shall not exceed 3,250 square feet or 36.6%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • sides. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9%. J. The area prepared for the sports court shall not exceed 2,800 square feet. K. Balanced cut and fill shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not be required for the project but, any soil preparation for the sports court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the sports court and landscaping. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. . P. The sports court shall be screened with 8 foot high fencing on all four Q. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs using Carolina Laurel Cherry, California pepper and Xylosma, as described on the proposed landscape plan. R. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court. S. 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. T. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 4 OF 7 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 drainage, 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. U. Noise from sports court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. W . During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that . people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Y. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the canyon at the west. Z. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AA. During construction, 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 5 OF 7 BB. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. CC. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. DD. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. EE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. FF. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. GG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. HH. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. II. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. JJ. Any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. KK. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. LL. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a drainage, building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE ATTEST: DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1999. (4, ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN 1�ZA��F:ILYN KEIZ°N; DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING . HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, and Witte. Commissioner Sommer and Chairman Roberts. 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. 99-13 PAGE 7 OF 7 RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught with respect to real property located at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a sports court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1999, June 15, 1999, July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 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: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Section 3. On April 28, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A 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 May 1, 1999. 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 therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 • • DRAFT Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a sports court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a sports court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the sports court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad that has been legally graded and compacted and will not have a material impact on that property. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed sports court will be modest in size, constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will replace an existing asphalt parking area, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the sports court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the sports court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.31 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage and do not propose to grade the sports court area. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 • • DRAFT F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 595 for a proposed 2,800 square foot sports court, as shown on the Development Plan dated May 6, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 6, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with recreation court limitations. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,666 square feet or 11.3% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,416 square feet or 32.3%, coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad shall not exceed 3,250 square feet or 36.6%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • DRAFT I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,306 square feet or 17.9%. J. The area prepared for the sports court shall not exceed 2,800 square feet. K. Balanced cut and fill shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not be required for the project but, any soil preparation for the sports court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the sports court and landscaping. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. P. The sports court shall be screened with 8 foot high fencing on all four sides. Q. The sports court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs using Carolina Laurel Cherry, California pepper and Xylosma, as described on the proposed landscape plan. R. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the sports court. S. 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. T. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 4 OF 7 • • DRAFT 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 drainage, 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. U. Noise from sports court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. V. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. W . During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Y. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the sports court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the canyon at the west. Z. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AA. During construction, 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 i n 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 5 OF 7 DRAFT BB. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. CC. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. DD. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. EE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. FF. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. GG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. HH. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. II. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. JJ. Any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. KK. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. LL. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a drainage, building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 • • DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 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. 99-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 595. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 PAGE 7 OF 7 • • aiy .71). leoffin9, HEARING DATE: AUGUST 17, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR 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 APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 SITE LOCATION: 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 2.31ACRES APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. DONALD SLAUGHT REPRESENTATIVE: BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: MAY 1, 1999 REOUEST Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. At the July 20, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that staff research when the County Code changed regarding the steepness of cut and fill slopes. The County's District Engineer Lata Thakar informed staff that until April 29, 1990, a cut slope of 1.5:1 was allowed but, fill slopes were always required to be 2:1. Currently, all cut and fill slopes must be 2:1. In 1981, a permit was issued and finaled by the County for two 5' diameter x 30' deep seepage pits that were constructed west of the residence by Atlas Cesspool Service. Ms. Thakar also stated that the ability to construct a stable structure on the lower building pad would be determined by such factors as the size of the stable and that the stable structure is not proposed for human occupancy. 2. On July 20, 1999, Mr. Slaught provided an explanation about the types of plants and trees that are proposed to screen the proposed sports court. Mr. Slaught also read from a letter by the former owner of the property, Dr. Robert E. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South, providing history of the grading of .the lower pad on the property. Mr. Rick Hilliard, Peninsula Landscaping, representing the Slaughts, explained the number, types, and sizes of trees as ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. well as the growth rates of various plants included in the proposed landscape plan. Mr. John Resich, representing Mr. and Mrs. Ken Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, commented on the 1981 grading approval for 27 Middleridge Lane South, support of a stable structure on the lower pad of that property, the irrigation of the proposed landscaping and drainage, the location of the septic tank, and the landscape screening and views of the sports court. Mrs. Ann Carley, Chair, RHCA Landscape Committee, commented on the landscape screening and the impact on the Johnson's view, suggesting that more and more mature California pepper trees be added to the plan from the beginning of the project.. Since the June 15, 1999 meeting, the following documents were provided by Mr. Slaught: a County grading permit issued in 1979 and finaled in 1983 for which certification by a civil engineer was required; a County building permit for a new residence with attached garage that was finaled in 1981; a 1979 Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Committee building permit approval; and two notes signed by RHCA Architectural Foreman Roger Vink, the first, dated 1981, states that the "lower pad recompacted as per County" and the second, dated 1982, is a final inspection for the residence, pool and driveway walls. At the June 15, 1999 meeting, Commissioners discussed Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Landscape and viewscape plans were presented by the applicants. Mr. John Resich, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, the proposed landscaping and views. Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering, representing the Slaughts, presented a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, regarding the construction of a sports court pad that in his opinion will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. Previously, at the May 18, 1999 and May 26, 1999 meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson expressed concerns about their viewscape and the stability of the sports court pad. A letter from Mr. Johnson is attached. Mr. George W . Schramm, 27200 Sunnyridge Road, and Mr. William E. Sanders, 27136 Sunnyridge Road, expressed concerns about court lighting and were told by Chairman Roberts that court lighting is prohibited. Copies of the proposed plan signed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Dr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South; were submitted by the applicants. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 • • 3. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 4. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 5. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 6. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 7. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 9. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 10. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 11. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 i • • drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 • • L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 SPORTS COURT REQUEST RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 EXISTING The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Total N/A 14.1% 6,416 sq.ft. 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South PROPOSED No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. Total 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review • • 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. b. Prohibited in front yard Not in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be No retaining walls for the court proposed. exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% Conforms with lot coverage limitations structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons existing lower pad area of the lot. or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 No grading proposed. cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and Planning Commission will review natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system Required condition k. Requires screening on all four sides Required condition I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with Planning Commission will review viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting Required condition n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 7 RICHARD DEVIRIAN DAVID UTLEY BRIAN S. DETRICK OP COUNSEL HOWARD B. BROWN RON MANDELL DONALD B. DEVIRIAN July 23, 1999 LAW OFFICES OF DEVIRIAN, UTLEY & DETRICK 317 NORTH BROAD AVENUE WILMINGTON, CALIFORNIA 90744 TELEPHONES (310) 830-2323 OR (213) 775-7331 FACSIMILE (310) 830-2219 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: r@EIVE AUG 0 3 1999 CENTURY CITY OFFICE 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD. SUITE 2080 LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90067 • (310) 552-1919 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RV 1. My name is Richard Devirian. I owned 27 Middleridge Lane S. from January 27, 1984 until August 1998, at which time we sold to the Slaught family. My family and I were the first to actually reside in the house. 2. From the beginning of our negotiations, I was aware of Mr. Slaught's desire to put a sports court on the lower pad. It was an important issue for him to be able to create an area for his children to play. 3. It was my understanding that the lower pad had been designed, constructed and approved at the time of my purchase and we did not change or alter the pad during our ownership. Visually it never changed appearance and has remained in its existing condition except for yearly weed abatement. Sincer , RICHARD DEVIRIAN cElvE . • )UL 2 U 1999 KEITH W. EHLERT OF ROLLING HALLS Consulting Engineering Geologist July 15, 1999 Project No. 37 Mr. Ken Johnson 29•Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPLANATION OF LETTER PROVIDED TO OWNER OF 27 MIDDL LANE SOUTH Rolling Hills, CA The purpose of this letter is to explain to you the purpos letter dated June 15, 1999 that I prepared for your neighbc J.R. Slaught. You asked me if the letter I prepared for Mr. Slaught approval of the geology for a proposed recreational sports My letter dated June 15, 1999 is not an approval of the gec I was asked by Mr. Doug McHattie to prepare a letter ff Slaught discussing the impact construction of a sports court have on 'an existing ancient landslide that underlies the a the proposed sports court. The existence of the ancient lan is based on work we performed on your property (29 Middler review of published geologic maps, and review of photographs., As indicated in the letter to Mr. Slaught, it is my opinion t drainage improvements are incorporated into the construction sports court, the construction of the sports court would de the riskof the landslide becoming active. As stated letter, any increase in the amount of water entering the lan could cause it to become active. In addition, the letter ind that placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide could the factor -of -safety and result in the landslide becoming a It is my opinion that unless a complete geologic and engineering investigation of the area of the proposed sports is performed, the risk of the ancient landslide becoming act the future cannot be fully evaluated. As indicated in my let Mr. Slaught, I do not know the factor of safety of the a - landslide and no guarantee is expressed or implied tha landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information presen; this report, please contact our office. spectfully Submitted, W. Ehlert Consulting Engineering Geologist 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, C. (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 311165-9318 Jt..11- 20-99 02: 10P Ken Ornson 6 A 07/20/1999 15:45 3143, °. 2-1 V\ e- (2-4 5bwie4eN ex,k4.1 110- 1.3rikAs.s ••• -ro tract-4 tmAhe • 4 Y. 5 S fivi" v1I 4 'Roiev• rvi (4, P .02' PAGE 02/02 6\A'at*Vgi ft, • 4.-t-•`"-- 5‘-‘4-' 19' • AN cAECEIV9 JUL 2 0 1999 CITY OF ROLLING I-fILLS [Iv •• • 0&41-1-0 z7 1,1,4-16±La.„.0. c-vuzik. AIL 2v159 t. J?)L2 0 ir:72 CITY OF ROILING ` xLL= 1ew ot,oti,I KvrtMe 0-0 z7 JUL ? 0 1999 \Itew cizt, r-e( S „Hi 199, Vu „..),.. .. . 6"6.#"°/"Z"-.0-40.7 1...--- S-n-i1-446441 JUL 2 0 1999 ► ►� ti, sa.O ce.e tom, ZooM� • J. R. SLAUGHT I CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION 5420 MEADOWDALE LANE • RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90274 • (213) 541-2167 July 20, 1999 i To Whom It May Concern: As Don's father and a licensed real estate broker I spent two years researching properties in our local area for him and his family. An essential criteria, first established, was to find a home that had a large and suitable play area for his four young children. Many suitable homes in other respects were rejected because the yards were not adequate. When the home at 27 Middleridge in Rolling Hills became available for purchase and seemed attractive in many ways, the first concern was a play area and the use of the lower pad for this purpose. It was apparent that even before any offer on the house would be presented that I should ask the Johnson family next door if they would have any objection to a sports court being placed on this lower pad. In answer to the specific question Ken Johnson's response was in a very gracious manner to the effect "no, we would not object to a sports court as long as it was screened with landscaping". There was no statement or even an indication that it would have to be totally screened from "day one". If this had been his statement at the time I would have indicated then and there that this is not practical or reasonable. With my experience as a general contractor and real estate developer building homes and shopping centers for over forty years I know that screening with landscaping without allowing for normal growth does not work. Jamming fully grown trees together would likely cause loss of many of them as well as being prohibitive in cost. I would have advised my son that his new neighbor was not being reasonable in his request. I feel Don and his family probably would not have purchased the subject property and would have continued looking elsewhere. 2E@EOV9 JUL 2 0 1999 PITY OMING HILLS =�y Respectfully submitted, 5?r--. John R. Slaught ie,ckLs-zt;e_e_eja } JUL 2 0 1999 cm( OF ROLLING HILLS uv u; J t .0 o3 E 3 .s5 0 JUL 2 0 199 ()Iry OF ROLLING H4LLS E 5 CITY OF ROLLING HELLS rt ti dal; P.N. 3798-96 J SCALE 1" = 100' • F .464051, �y4 AERIAL PHOTO AND REGIONAL TC'OGRAPHIC MAP SHOWING SITE AND MAPPED LANDSLIDE FIGURE 3 ' .;-••••• • .„ PPLICATION FOR ,GiiNG P • ••• . • • ••••• ..- ••••••• 641V-ce80713 12-78 -..i,; -•'.:.,,,'.- •• ?, rtf., --.:-1..,. 0;. ' , . . k.,, e -,,. .5i. ,, • '.' 4.1,, ; •,s, .• ..v&-y,' 4„.....r....... ..7t U..;*..... t%f.'.1-,' ...;74•I' :A..: 3;k 1-• :it.... 1,V.Th. „. .. , . • 6? . ''k.46. 7 7 ,:t 1 a---, ,_:..,.:„. ..111 . - . . ....„,eld BU‘LOIN6 Al4D.pAFkii.DIVIS10 ij,.!—..1.;..7..1- ,,',. .7'1- • . • • • : -•:•••••• FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN • ADDRESS A41 DODLE IZ1 0 CriW PIA) E SV. LOT SITE 2,_ • •- ' BLOCK —. • _ Ir.. NUMBERS ILI g *27 owar" MAIL evil AQP ADDRESS EN 9INEE R ADDRESS •:•• GRADING • • - CONT7A-21,2 RACTOR.. ADDRESS -..PROPOSED USE OF GRADED SITE(S) ...• • k . CHECK IF SUPERVISED GRADING 7 SIGNATURE ,-•,--77= -!'.7-• . --..;...P."--..•-•"7 ---:," • -. OF APPLICANT •., .--T ^ -•‘^' ,- r:*? •''.,- t7.,' ,', ADDRESS :''.: ;.,.: 4,....":"`"!:'i's,J''',•-...140,, -1,-,°-.°44.---,--:--,'•• ^.•-••e-7,...?; l NEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE' THAT I .HAVE READ TNIS " APPLICATION AND STATE • THAT 7.7THE -ABOVE -15 - CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY ORDINANCES T'AND STATE .LAWS REGULATING EXCA- VATING AND -GRADING. --",.....!....-."-..- P- :-1,:::---,47.74-ZzA,'?•‘,.:.•:.;' -:j.;-=•"7i`27....•"fe.''' '' ••,>-.1.::•-...,,,,;.::..,,;„.;::.1':-.4::'Lf.- .2giel .2—..--.-; • ..- ,tt..;: •,;. . If ''-' SIGNATURE .pERMITTEE . _ AGENT FOR_ ADDRESS CUBIC YDS. HANDLED: ' f.0 ;Co •;; f:) ••• ' , LOCALITY . NEAREST CROSS_ST. DISTRICT NO. MAP NO. • - STATE HWYjd P SSED BY YES 0 NO • USE ZONE SPECIAL - 4,„ exic CONDITIONS aso,-k,a. • • * 7, t ": EC.D. - OA TE-""%- • •,,,_:;;;" Y . - • . -- ... • ' :FiLeo .:::.7tr.... • :;.1•1104;4444,5 1.4 A LIMITED TIME PERMIZ ' Ve -,, ALL WORK AUTHORIZED MUST BE COMPLETEDBY -. TIME LIMIT: EXTENDED TO: BY: EXTENDED TO; --4- ------- --- - . •••-•-•BY:--"'"-----"---"--- INITIAL ---------.-- GRo. pREP:'...- .../. 5,... ECTOR. IGNATURE .• . COMPACTION REPORT REVD. ,1.. 5cDA,T SUP. ENGR'S. ' : - CERT. REVD.. '-: 7 . '. . .0----......; .... - -... '.:...-7-:- 11"-e„,- Y-' --1-• - Yi ROUGH GRADING . .°. : APPROVAL '--- ' '.7--, • - - IRI!IGATION , 4- - .1"Kee..1. oiiiV.A64- . • ''''''-_-'"-..-- 4'7 . PLANTING Aim ___.--, .,. A.,4 • „..."." .2 SUP. ENGR'S. ... FINAL APPROVAL ".7•- SURETY :10 RELEASED T. ..A7,-`• • • ermit Fee • _• ...:.••••.: •.:_n• -z-• ..-.-r• ---.....,-..--=---„....7- '-'_:-.;1-4,4 • Issuance Fee • .-.'• •-•'.--.7 _ ry. - - • , Total Fee 7e....5*-1 ,:i.-;___„:4.-, PgvieuckerioN -CX • IV • -•!•,,.• • ..$••• '1% 0 — r-2' .7--1. • • • in 0 • 0- 0 b 'P.,' • • • • • • INSPECTION NOTES: t),w, _ Jw •.•I I A - 1 �f 2.• •'a�ht?uw'.(•.- _ . i�..�t.t • • ...:_ .• . ..-. _. _, .i.. • - ..41"•r' a`ir,... • .- —, .,,r,-*- _.......:.._.-.;:Y'b..::'.%."..:.4+ .. _._.n........ —. _ = . 7 c_ -•1 • - r.. • 4.34-5z4 • 4.1 • :.?•%;`ems --.yam. "���•- ti-k a, :' ... ;' ... l .. .. , J . . ' a... 73;4 S.,"�'�i •r.-• �T{y'� r9 • 41,40 • • t•,.•-,.,G ;E O L O G'•.1 C _'A N D S O I L'S ;:::R .E Pp _R_ T -S F ;! 'C.;=E •.,b: -` =�D Y DATED REC'D. APPRV'D. ':;` rr.�'R E MBA %Kr 5 ;34 r. ' � t�w a Ste` .• r...„g: y"4'.: 5^':-?*::$.:`" 4,•.yq�snF•=:,lq•..�i�?6i%, e.r-vt- r, c?4t.','2.it to .• •- • O • • a •i— M I WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION Thereby affirm that 1 have o certificate of consent to self sure, or o certificate of Workers' Compenst pn Insurance, o' f certified copy thereof (Sec. 3800, Lob. 5.) plicy No. Company • . • ' • Certified copy is hereby furnished. Certified copy is filed with the county building inspec- tion department. ),ate Applicant CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (This section need not be completed if the permit is for one (aundred dollars ($100) or less.) I certify that in the performance of the work f r which this permit is issued, I sholl not employ any perso I any manner So as to�sbecome subject to the Workers' nsati� Law Dote E/�'r V/9f pplicant_.- NOTICE TO. APPLICANT: If, after making this tificate of Exemption, you should become subject to ie�Workers' kCompensation provisions of the Labor Code, you must forth - :with comply with such provisions or this permit shall be :,deemed revoked. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION • 11 hereby affirm that I om licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and t Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. is License Number I ic. Clrn• 13 F.F. Contractor Date "EDr I am exempt from the licensing requirements as I om a licensed architect or a registered professional engineer octing in my professional capacity (Section 7051, Business and Professions Code). Lic. or Reg. No. DatP OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exeriipt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 7031.5, Business and Professions Code): I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Section { 7044, Business and Professions Code). I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec- tion 7044, Business and Professions Code). CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY 1 hereby offirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097, Civ. C.). Lender's Nome Lender's Address I certify that I have read this application and stale that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all County ordinances and State laws relating to building construction, and hereby ou orize representatives of this County to enter L upon the a + ntioned prop . �r pection p rposes. per, riled Signature of B, oticant or Agent ' Date .11 - APPLICATIOFOR BI)ILDIN'G PERMIT .COUNTY OF LO6l ANGELES BUILDING AND SAFETY t a, FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN WILDING DURESS 27 Mi ddl er•T doe I CITY Rolling Hills Est. NO. OF BLDGS. SIZE OF LOT 1 •1/2 aCre4ow ON LOT —0— TRACT 26113 I BmCKI LOT NO. 2 OWNER s �'—ADDRESS 609 Deep w Rolling Hills Est. 1. ARCHITECT OR _ ENGINEER I -ADDRESS 118 S. Catalina CONTRACTOR (lynar./R1 dear ADDRESS Young & Assoc. zip 90274 • CITY _ SQ. FT. NO. OF NO. OF SIZE 4398 STORIES 1 FAMILIES ' BUILDING ADDRESS LocALtrY . ,' f >1--- 1 J NEAREST 1 '. - CROSS ST.. ASSESSOR ' - MAP BOOK PAGE USE ZONE NO. , /C� fa - I NO. 7` TEL. J4. tg Houshann 4leki 1 i No. 541 -981 9 (SPECIALCOWITIONS DISTRICT I GROUP„ TYPE CONST. Valley Dr. VP 90274 No. 376-8803 R.B.. CA TEL. NO. LIC. NO. LIC. CLASS CHECK 1 ONE - DESCRIPTION OF WORK NEW . Construct single family ADD ALTER. residence with attached gar. REPAIR USE OF - EXISTING BLDG. ---- DEMOL APPLICANT (PRNT)Houshanq Wekili ADDRESS609 Deep Valley PRESENT BUILDING ADDRESS LOCALITY MOVING CONTRACTOR ADDRESS REQUIRED SET BACK FRONT P.L. SIDE P.L. YARD HWY No.541-9819 -d FIRE ZONE J 3 1- 3 STATISTICAL CIASSII MCATION 0 CLASS NO. 1. DWELL. UNITS Ir: SEWER MAP VALUATION $ /.a S1, 40,0 ). � TEL. NO. i► TOTAL SETBACK FROM EXIST. PROP. LINE WIDTH - P.C. Fee $ Investigation Fee Permit Fee / 3:2• 0 Issuance Fee Zen) ` Total Fee / .23 , 6V SEE REVERSE FOR EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE FINAL . DATE , ) 1 FINAL Al By /.� A7e. /0/4,, • • f v�77 ?%iddlt✓ride PARCEL PROCESSED BY APT. IC01''IDO. VALIDATION f (I t' . Il Os ‘. • tto. 141 visileGt • F� Fred Sands PALOS VERDES REALTY 16 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, Califomia 90274 Telephone (310) 378-1907 Facsimile (310) 378-2158 June 10, 1999 of Rolling Hills ing Commission #29 Middleri :Gentlemen: ... ' Ken �. Johnson,, owner of the above property, has asked for. my opinion as to whether. posed`�'recreational sports court to be built on the adjacent property would detract from '1 et.vaue ofm prope• YirA rty >. y opinion is, upon my 12 years of eveirienCe as a•icensed real' estate agent on the Pa erdes Peninsula. This experience has included 26 transactions *wiping residences in the Cif —plling#iTs where I represented either the buyer or seller. I presently am affiliated with Fie Palos Verdes Realty as Director of the Estates Division. • g JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry my:opiiuon a proposed sports court.will detract from is the value of Mr. Johnson'•s prop "µpriinanIy • forthe following two reasons:': ,..SS",7 •.N tx:q;.` sports court, as proposed, will be in clear view from each and every room of Mr. Johnson's home. This situation will result in a troublesomeIoss ofprivacy to The Johnson family. Rolling Hills, of course, is renowned for its `privacy and this is a primary objective of all potential Rolling Hills buyers. The sports court would cause such an intrusion on this privacy that it logically would negatively impact the desirability and hence the market value of Mr. Johnson's property. ■ The sports court will contaminate the sweeping and tranquil views of ocean and city lights that the subject property enjoys by creating a significant distraction in the foreground.' Ti all likelihood,this distraction would become an annoyance to most people especially when the court is in use. The quality of the view is a critically important factor in establishing value of properties on the Peninsula. A distraction such as the proposed sports court would substantially reduce the value of #29 Middleridge Lane South. • Respectfully submitted, Kathy Tillson• Director, Estate Division KT:frn. - Independently owned and operated • lE@En9 • JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Fav To Members of the Planning Commission - June 14th, 1999 I had a call recently from a friend who questioned whether a sports court, sited in a primary view direction, would have a negative impact on the value of his home. It is my opinion, based on 12 years in real estate in Palos Verdes, that there could be a substantial loss of value to his home depending on the visibility of the sports court from his home. Views are one of the major determinants of value. In fact, the City view preservation ordinance recognizes "the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the city". It goes on to say that the views are a "special quality of property ownership" for many homes in the city. It is my feeling that the above is especially applicable in this case. The existing (very) rural canyon view with the city as the backdrop, would lose much of it's dramatic appeal if the focal point of the immediate view was instead replaced with concrete and chain link. In order to retain as much value as possible as provided by the current view, my suggestion would be to try to mitigate the negative impact of the sports court with screening vegetation tall enough to hide the sports court from view, yet not so tall as to create it's own problem of view obstruction. Sincerely, Charlie Raine ReMax Palos Verdes P.N. 4202-99L Page 2 It is my opinion that although construction of the proposed tennis court in conjunction with appropriate drainage improvements will lower the risk of landslide activation, no guarantee is expressed or implied that the landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please contact my office. Respectfully submitted, e0EER/NG eit h�� N Consu t ngNoEElert ilg42 ee g Geologist �:. V sT9feDFr pok • KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist June 15, 1999 Mr. J.R. Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 elf glE n239 D JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Pv SUBJECT: INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PROPOSED TENNIS COURT 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA I have reviewed the area of the proposed tennis court. The proposed tennis court will be located within an ancient inactive landslide. It is my opinion that construction of the tennis court and improving drainage in the area of the ancient landslide will decrease the risk of the landslide re -activating in the future. It has been my experience that in most cases, ancient landslides re- activate as a result of introduction of water into the landslide. As part of the proposed improvements, providing adequate drainage to reduce the amount of water.. entering the landslide area is. imperative if reducing the risk of future landslide movement is to be achieved. In general, it is my opinion that construction of the tennis court will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. The opinions expressed above are based on site observations and work I performed on the neighboring property (29 Middleridge Lane South). No guarantee of future site performance is expressed or implied. I do not know what the factor -of -safety of the existing landslide is. Any proposed grading that results in placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide likely will lower the factor -of - safety and may result in activation of the landslide. As such, no fill should be placed in the upper portion of the landslide. In addition, the proposed improvements should not include lawn areas. It has been my experience that excessive watering of lawns can re -activate landslides. Any increase in the amount of water entering the landslide will lower the factor -of -safety and could de -stabilize the landslide. 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 GOLDEN..$TATB:': w• rrR Is l$, II4C 19i20 Wii ur@ Bbd„Ste C VVoodiaud:HUis, CA' :91 64 P one (310y 2us-ou9.7 Phone (818)'• 587-9494 Phone (213) 877-1808 ...... l: ai • . (818} 8834969 jIden State Approsals, Inc. June 9, 1999 Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Diminution of Value 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: HillVE JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RI/ The above referenced subject property was appraised by our firm on December 11, 1998. We will refer to our file and photographs for the purpose of supporting our statements in this letter. It is our opinion that a sports court blocking or deterring from the overall unobstructed view of the city or canyon will cause a diminution in value as a result of its construction. The overall marketability will be reduced due to the reduction in appeal. This is especially true if the sports court is the primary focal point and can be viewed from every room in the house. There is a limited supply of homes with unobstructed views. Thus, the value of the view to the overall value is a greater percentage. The only potential cure would be to allow a sunken sports court not obstructing the city view and sufficient landscaping to eliminate it as a focal point. Sincerely, La ence ynes, .� Appraiser !EOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CT� ..ENGINEANG /*-"'‘ :SECTION �,�• DEC 0 7 1913 AAK( CONSULTANTS. INC. 1818 E. BALL ROAD / ANAHEIM, CA 92805-5977 / (714) 635-6570 Toll Free: (800) 422-4117 Faver Construction • 1600 Cabrillo Avenue Torrance, California Subject: Evaluatio Residenc Los % An gele References: 1. outh Bay Engineering Corp,, "As -Built dated August 14., 1981. 2. Young & Associates, "Building Plans, Sheets 1-18," date printed January 22, 1981. 3. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Proposed Residential Construction, Lot 2,..Tract 26113, Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, California," dated September 29 & December 30, 1980, Project.Reference 2a78-02. 4. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, !!Soil Creep, Lot 2, Tract 26113,..;," dated February 5, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. 90501 Job #3841-F1-83 November 29, 1983 Gentlemen: wer Graded Pad Downslope from Existing ddleridge Lane .South, Rolling Hills - unty, California. Grading Plan," 5.. Lockwood Singh & Associates, "Report .of Geotechnical I.nvesti.gation, Lot 2,. Tract 26113, ...," dated December 21, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. Presented herewith are the results of our evaluation of the lower as -graded pad downslope from the existing residence. Our findings and conclusions are presented based on a field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The subject property was graded and the residential: structure constructed in 1981, The grading consisted of cut and fill grading to construct two level pad areas. The upper pad in the eastern end of the property had the residential structure and driveway constructed upon it. The structure is reportedly supported on a caissons and grade beam_--'' . foundation founded into competent bedrock. E 11 3 JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS [J) Ply #3841- F1® -2- Based on our review of the referenced reports, there was no 'engineering supervision done during the grading of the site. Therefore, none of the fill soil placement was supervised or certified and all structures were required to be supported through all fill soils and into competent bedrock. A field investigation consisting of a site inspection and subsurface exploration was conducted on November 10, 1983 and November 15, 1983. Two exploratory trenches were excavated using a rubber tire backhoe. The soils were logged by our field geologist. The approximate locations of the trenches are shown on the plot plan. The trench logs are presented in Appendix A. Th.e trenches were backfilled upon completion of our investigation. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained at frequent intervals. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a drive tube in accordance with ASTH Test Method D-2937-71 (:76). In -place density tests were also taken using the Sand Cone Method in accordance with ASTM D-1556-64 (74). Afl :soil samples were:transported:to_our, laboratory.. See Appendix B for laboratory test results. Based on the referenced preliminary geotechnical report (reference no. 5), the original natural earth material conditions consisted of a clay topsoil and subsoil that overlaid the bedrock to depths of 2 to 17 feet. Underlying bedrock consists of siltstone and shale, slightly bentonitic. Grading in 1980 added a maximum of 20 feet of fill in the lower graded pad area. Based on our review of the referenced reports and our subsurface exploration,- proper keys and benches were not cut into competent bedrock prior to fill placement. Fill soils were apparently placed directly on the original topsoil. Relative compaction of the fill soils were found to be 85 to 88% of maximum density. The original topsoil underlying the fill soils was: found to be moist to wet and soft to slightly firm, indicating insufficient reworking of the topsoil prior to fill placement and questionable competency. The fill slope descending along the west end of the pad is finished at an inclination as steep as 1.7 to 1 (horizontal:vertical). The slope surface areas are soft to depths of at least 18 inches and do not have good surface compaction. A stability analysis was performed on the existing fill conditions to determine the degree of stability. Calculations were performed based on results of direct shear tests presented in Appendix B and the laboratory test results in the referenced reports. The stability analysis indicates that the lower pad area is grossly stable with a safety factor of1.90- and1.13 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. �o U A AKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. • #38410-83 -3- Although the lower pad is determined to be grossly stable, there is a potential for some minor downhill creep of the fill soils due to the low relative compaction of the fill soils, the 1.7:1 steepness of the fill slope, and the soft soil conditions in the fill slope face. Based on these aforementionLconditions and the incompetericy of the original topsoils underlying the fill fl T,the_lomer oad area is deter mined to be_un.s_uitabl.e._for the support of_anL$tructur_e_s,. This lower pad area may be safely used for non-structural purposes such as horse corrals or landscape areas without detrimental effects or safety hazards. To increase the overall stability of this lower pad area, the following recommendations may be followed: 1. The fill slope surface should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, properly benched, backfilled and recompacted to at least 90% of maximum density. The slope surface should be compacted by either overfilling and cutting back to expose the compacted core or by suitable mechanical methods. 2. The pad drainage should be properly designed to ensure surface drainage away from th.e slopes and off the pad in a non - erodible manner. 3. Th.e slopes should be planted with a suitable deep rooted, drought resistant ground cover type vegetation to enhance the surficial stability of the slope. Additionally, we recommend the use of deep rooted trees and bushes to enhance the surficial stability at greate.r depths. 1 To obtain a structural pad suitable for the support of a structure, 1 all the fill soils would have to beremoved and the original topsoil over - excavated down to competent bedrock, which would result in excavations as great as 28 feet in depth. A keyway and benches would have to be excavated into th.e bedrock prior to fill placement and fill soils would have to be placed i:n horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 inches, properly watered or aerated to achieve optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of maximum density. The fill slope must be finished at an inclination not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Our findings andconclusions are based on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied nor made. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING rr Nc1 n TA Arrc n.lr #3841-FA -4- This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any further questions regarding this.matter, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted,. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERTNG CONSULTANTS, INC. ERY,.R.C.E. 24711 A AKO ENGINEGEOTECHNICAL ENrGINWIM , I^r #3841-F1e -5- APPENDIX A TRENCH LOGS AAKOENGINE RVNG+>_ EfINEERI^NK^� • #3841-F1 S -6- Logged By RW TRENCH LOG NO. T-1 Trench Orientation. N58°W Client• Faver Construction F— EARTH MATERIALS O a) C a) o C +3 0 V1 •-) 'O V1 C -C co C VI f0 \ N a) \ C al O C 4-3 0 VI 4-3 V1 r- +3 •r- r- y •r- • Vs E ..0 L 4.3 al .1- VI 4- 3 1).- RI >, >1 dr-- ta VI d•3 U .0 01 i-' •r- >, • •r- r- + 3 0 3 In r- VI •r- C >1 0 VI a) Itt +3 • I r- 3>, �4-- O r >1 0 - W +0 V) +3 r- +-1 i In 4-) •.-0 3 J E 0 0 i+3' w 1 +4 +-I E 0 0 e r-• VI -NG VI !L E O E m e O l4 0 1 1 =p "a 2R N O V' cr co 20 M N r► N oga a; ►`- of .o r• r r Job No.: Date: 11/15/R1 Site• Middleridge Lane South, Rollina Hills GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION Si I r r I it)\f1 • #38410 83 -7- TRENCH LOG NO. T-2 Job No.: Logged By RW Trench Orientation. N65°W Date• 11/15/8; Client. Faver Construction Site lii ddl eri dne Lane South. Ro11 i na Hills co w 1— EARTH MATERIALS sil tstone/sandstone •r" 0 4-- •F N 0 "0 +2 r0 N S- 4.3 r Vf +.) +3 .0 1 o) H E r- t S- N ••- N 4- 3 S- +F a Qra 3 r0 11) r ..0 t) L 01 +� •r- • •r- r-- + ) C) 3 N ✓ cc) .r. C >) O tN Q) co •1-) •0 r— C 0 +' O � i N •N N. -0 +► .— +� +- aro c 3 E L 1 • .0 4-) r--• V▪ ) . N r- •r- L •r- LL p E Dark gray brown silty clay, t 1 1 Q CO U a) N C) 0- 0_ 0_ s Z 0 1— Z v,//w/'� w cc a. w 0 Id/_/� _ MMQ {.L V t 0 m 0 0 a E m U 2C �CzR o o " a 0 O . • • • . • • 0 N N • • • • • . • #384,1-83 -8- S APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS GEOTECHNICAL AAKO1 • #38411-83 Job #: -9- Client: Techni ci an:_AZ—�", DIRECT SHEAR TEST Site: Date: RQ/J,nJ q H1lJS soil: 7 ! LT/Y 7G1-1 ' Sample: T/ 6;:!) Apme4 0 Test Method: ASTM D-3080-72 Sample Dimensions: Diameter: rf2,V ' Height: /40 ---." Initial Dry Density: 17/. ' p c-f Initial Moisture Content: Me Ultimate Value: 0: C: Peak Value: 0: Z�° C: Rio ,, - Residual: 0: 2 1 ° C: Zzo s� 250C 7.1 200r; Shear Stress (Pounds Per Sq. 1500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Bearing Pressure (Pounds Per Sq. Ft.) o Indicates soil sample at field moisture condition. •Indicates soil sample at saturated moisture condition. A r. goTECHNICAL • • /3841-F1-83 -10- t. APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY AAKOGE `""I`AI. EtVC�I EATr G 7co---- 750 — -140 "730— �zo — 7l0 — 700-- r,9o— O({ICdNP L :, CTO AP6 E2(151-1 rI(r ORAVF. FILL. G D 81 Toj'So �AL. F3EpRocK ORIGINAL 6oIL/BCPgoci- IN'�E(i AcE 5CfloNI A -A ScAt-E ► I".=�30'._...... SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .455vt P Solt: PARAN>`'7-AJ -r pso,L; 6.►oonc-t £8-Td-Tti8£# Surcharge Area �j 0 o L Safety Factor Section Slice p. s . f . FL 2 p.c.f W a a lb. DC 0 C WSin CosWCos2°( Tan Ft. Static a F=Ma Static Seismi t3GDG'BIA AREA 240 100 26000 18' IV 770 744-0 5430 41 /27Go RLL'R'6 LGo lot) Gc000 /4° ,3" /9490 i43so 41 Rio GDc'c_ Geo Ioo (Goon /o' 1',' v.17 II i9n 7478a 4-3 932-o - .f. • I57cve0 34:7—a SLo 3n8`?4` .154, 23%a /, 90 /. (3__ . 0 • #3841 , 83 -12- APPENDIX D PLOT PLAN A A KO ENGI GEOTENE VICCHNKAL • E$IS'(I der ORAVF. ILL •�-ORiGritAt. 6EpROGK oRl(tINAL _So lt-/BEPRoc$- IN'1ERFAGt: 65GTioN A -A Title Client FAr‘g- ScAL-E: I 3o' S C1ION A -A CooS'F RuclPart Site 13 Mt oIn.tatroiSe LAra S.oTH r20lLLulA HI�ws BSi4t6S� CA AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. 1818 E. Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92805 (714) 635-6570 Job No. 'Dwg. NO. f • j • • • AO. 1 1 1 l / 7 / C 1h - EDGE AY/46 RC/CTEp ,. - • 0 00 al CO cGo.o CO 01 • g cri .o • W 0 CO 01-4 -1 a ri• d 0 0 2 0 J 3 AA O CO Z .I _ 0 V C 0 d '' ✓ Cl) 'r. t ex Pt. •RAroft:t 'MOH OH GH' Location • r►. ;OILS ENGINEERING REVIEW, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER Design Division SOILS ENGINEERING SECTION 27 hiddleridge Lane South i.ot a, 'tract 26113, Rolling Hills. Developer/Owner Paver Construction Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer A ATM CrPnf:At`hni nal Engi nAAri ng (Job 3841—F1 —83 ) EO vist 12.02 SHEET / OF DISTRIBUTION ❑ Plan Check - Building and Safety ❑ Site Engineer ❑ Geologist ❑ Soils Engineer ❑ Geology Section DIE l eol ngy SPeti n„ ❑ distribution (PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S)) REVIEW OF: ❑ Grading Plan No. ❑ Geologic Report Dated ❑ Other ❑ Refer to references in review dated 0 Building Plan No. {,'igl Soils Report Dated e,-. 19R3 ACTION: ❑ Plans and Reports are approved; 0 Before approval the following Reports are approved information is required: soblectto conditions below. REMARKS: The gross stability calculations of the lower pad area are approved. However, as recommended by the soils engineer, this area is unsuitable for support of any structures and should be used for non-structural purposes only. The soils engineer also should evaluate the nature of any hazards created by (a) the soft fill slopes descending from the lower pad and (b) the driveway fill wedge between the house and lower pad. Hazards should be removed as recommended by the soils engineer and approved by the City and County. Prepared by Reviewed by IAMIU9 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ay Date 1, Dui:=lbel: 19E • GEOLOGIC REVIEW SHEET COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • .4 F NF DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEER -FACILITIES Environmental Development Divis ion ENGINEERING GEOLOGY,SECTION 738-2161 �! ., ;1' ;' r 2 6 f "3 Site Address 'i. .•i , 1.. ry r. ♦ + 7111 Location •'r, J4'.s,.-4 iv • '/ -- Developer/Owner './' ! t '4..:; • i,- :n .� i ,.•1 • ' .-� , 13 . Engineer ' ! ! ^ r' . ! • .- j .''i • t 4 .. Geologist - . !-; vi? .1 - .. ,. ,.-, . : .. i:. Soils Engineer : • % }7'' '. .'.,, 4 •_— , ., ;n r. r:: - - r PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Review of: Action: Remarks: ❑ Grading Plan No. [] Building Plan No. ❑ Geologic Report Doted ❑ Soils Report Dated ❑ Other SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: ❑ Plan Check ® Dist. Engineer 0 Developer -Owner ❑ Site Engineer Q Geologist 0 Soils Engineer Geol. Sect. File Grading Section ❑ Plan is approved ❑ Plan is not approved for reasons below ❑ Plan approved subject to conditions below 0 Submit plans for recheck , _ !'• et 'v:' c . �� r .t"' C_•_. : t. / t... ! �. L c1 Si e: r_ t .e.ct ci c". CV. C: V. rt I v; • i Imo• t..L t _ • e . C. c, .J' �`•_'� ! .: i �I- T. C_`., �= r r j • Prepared by ,Reviewed b: • • •� Hato, . .. • :GEOLOGIC REVIEW•SHE NF Site Address Q 7 Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Review of: ci ❑ Action: COUNTY OF, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF•ENGINEER-FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION // / / 974-s7338 m j /Y F./ /r, i^ /� c %/�] e, / 1'D /r ,C o /. ♦ Y/+ t T to�%.� \Cesr,ih 1.ef 7inne. ,r- e- of-f- A ,• Or- . PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Grading Plan No. 4 0 2 4 Building Plan No Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dated Other ❑ Plan is approved ❑ Plan approved subject to conditions Remarks: • Prepared by below I c,: 0. v o (-7 r, c llt; /1'7us j.; /7L it; C.' J ,./ / J /J eCI.7 rt/t ''' / l:j f'C�Gtf�. r /re' Leo/c J -f r-• 71 %'7 F / - / r ?' r -/ / i i. r r•. / /5 r )C . �� ^ S`o/ /tr 7/ e^e el, 4%1'1./`/r'►ti' •.ii!y_•/ • cl F7el 0/ / e/?i?/1-:r-e- f:/-, ' ▪ r 4) 4 'J C- / /C'ri • / �'l� �•t':lr. C,. lLrr%ri'%,5, i i' j✓/Jr'el/ c' /• / /2 , ,r SHEET OF / DISTRIBUTION: ❑ Plan Check 14 D• ist. Engineer ❑ Developer -Owner ❑ Site Engineer 0 G• eologist Q S• oils Engineer in Geol. Sect. File m Grading Section J Plan is not approved for reasons below ®- Submit plans for recheck r• vit'WFG( e Al ei!-i/`:J7 Yny'r<. et.:7 •r7 / €? /-7 Cl S - rr r i "l'/ 7 G 1- /1%/`-PI e•5 C•sgci /c/ 6;cioit;(7-1 0 / f V/ 0 21 v �D /.:� C 4A, et S 17 C� �-i rI C r /• e' /.. _7 / r.` -Il?' E. Wr7/ o 44,7Tf't5s ....0 pr',t1/,, ,-,-; / "r- i Reviewed elf 'e7 #'r • • Lockwood -Singh & Associates A CORPORATION Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists 9977 Jefferson Boulevard • Culver City, California 90230 Telephone: (213)870-7335; (213)836-5431 R. BRUCE LOCKW000. R.E.G. AWTAR SINGH. C.E. February 27, 1979 Southstone, Inc. c/o Dr. Robert E. Norcross 3655 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 209 Torrance, California 90505 Project Ref. 936-72 HEIVE1 JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SUBJECT:, ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF GEOTEQ-INICAL INVESTIGATION DATED DECEMBER 21, 1977 LOT 2, TRACT 26113 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: This addendum is submitted in response to a question raised by Mr. R.E. Smith, Engineering Geology Section, County of Los Angeles, in a Geologic Review Sheet dated February 8, 1979. The Review Sheet stated that, "The area of the corral has been shown as a landslide on the California Division of Mines and Geology map and as an area of slope wash and creep by the consultants.. Will a buttress be required for the 2:1 slope?" The January 3, 1979 grading plan by L.A. Young, A.I.A. $ Associates shows that the proposed development in the area of the corral will be mainly fill slopes. It has been recommended in our referenced report that a key of 3 feet deep into competent material be provided at the toe of the fill slopes and that the compacted fill be benched into competent material as filling progresses. This will essentially eliminate most of the slope wash and creep soils in the area. Cut slopes planned in the area will remove some of the slope wash and creep soils. The amount remaining is not considered to be significant and no JUL 1 6 970 • • Proj. Ref. 936-72 -2- February 27, 1979 Norcross - Middleridge buttress is considered necessary. The proposed grading should improve the stability of the area. The resulting graded slopes are considered satisfactory for the intended use. Very truly yours, LOCKWOOD-SINGH $ ASSOCIATES OVA Awtar Singh CE 17727 AS/RBL:jmf A"ee/ R. Bruce Lockwood CEG 204 EDWARD CtSON BEALL, AIA AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE EDWARD CARSON BEALL, AICP, AIA GEORGE C. SHAW, NCARB, AIA MILES E. PRITZKAT SUSAN R. BEALL, ASID JULIE HEINSHEIMER, ASLAA INTERIOR DESIGN LANDSCAPE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 14, 1999 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: In reference to Zoning Case #595 Slaught Residence 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) Through much research of the nursery stock available from the largest growers in LA County, I have determined that the best plant material available to screen the Slaught tennis court is as follows: PRUNUS CAROLINIANA - CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY As upright shrub, it can be well -branched and used as formal, clipped hedge or tall screen to 20'; trained as tree it will become broad -topped and reach 35-40', Densely foliaged with glossy green, smooth -edged; small creamy white flowers in Feb.. to Apr.; small black fruit. Needs no water once established. Immediately available from Norman's Nursery in a 24" box tree, 8-9' tall x 3' round XYLOSMA CONGESTUM - XYLOSMA (zy-LOZ-muh) Usually a loose, graceful, spreading shrub that grows to 8-10' tall and as wide or wider. Can be used as a single or multitrunked tree, arching shrub, espalier on wall or fence, clipped or unclipped hedge. Leaves are shiny, yellowish -green, clean and attractive; new growth bronzy; flowers insignificant, rarely seen. Moderate watering. Immediately available from Boething Treeland in a.24" box tree, 5.5-6' tall x 2,5-3' round Yours truly, EDWARD CARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES einsheimer JH: smc 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 FAX: (310) 375-9530 (310) 378-1280 E-Mail: ecbeall@aol.cum • City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South Dear Planning Commission Members: -ngE[IW19 MAY 1 4 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS spy This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which 1 received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated. When the original developer built 27 Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's . approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. — 2 — • Y Ma 13 1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planniig commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. lithe above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. c Don Slaught J° 141* 40" cpres vmMiker.c**Isat vioutowe /*a • l'k•2ivt'^ �ls • • • City ofieolling NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR). Rolling Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills, CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: fred- l(AA-tx-r Lola Ungar, Pl4triing Director Printed on Recycled Pepe, r T •CT•\. e N. D. R. /5 / a 0S / 169•B e/ L / • 0• I I/ / + • 1S45 .0b. e ^ ;11 256 /io 1� AP / 254 / / 447: >Y cos '1 Hfe-1.r / v IA •t, `24a-c '2 -i �.�// / \\ eD-1 .fs /= \ / E! / s ,, I aonw/. \ /) e / / ~�/ i� / / ✓ • I 344 AG / .tr 24d-A-ZI'' mach wf i J / ' i...a:: °1"" 1 \ /,\?P /ye'-- 7 - • ; 90-6 \\I j 64-1 0/ 1 ,, 1 M 0.0 /I^ as / . \ �`- ...414 4 — / It I ��i+k I (2.5" • I �.+ \ sp_5\\ if-V.?;.1.—/ •c,,,"",' - 1 mo,I \ \; /1 • I I �G,j t�a4 s..y ` I / r _.t....- •• 1 �-- -' , "97-/ } jam/ _. e.• .•e •s.r. ♦ I / / 1 «A„... I 14 .96•/ ( . \ l \ 96.2 IN I /, �\ 7_, esi.. ` l fir. r.. / r`a MO4/ 1 ` 7.... T ~' Otis I I2 '� I RV \ C 1 \ \ yOt \ /0/ \ 1 cm.4 1 t 1 / 1 h j I ♦mot ��\�\\ ► 1 _. / E 1 \ \ IJ o l06 c `\ ,1•\ \ _� ,.,,�. , rH 9 \ // 10e..g 111 _ i 11. 1 /-_- 106-D \ / a:b1r Ab — abew. / \ - - - -- - $ /04-A t 1'"'a JQS'? ;k �� 111 /04-A ' / I r� o I t'.1 soiz,k swt �N L. 1- b 1/ C/ \ / _ I1� 2.t5.9 4, \ \ 106-A \ j J.,.A1e Q♦Q „11 � • a $ 245-A 1.11 /07 . N. t I / TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS -t r '►d / n t' f / C / I ..azf-4• t. 94 SNP Ale. N- \\ \ \ 102 \\� t►n -__-_7 f /04-B /1 / toa+e /04.0 / 1 • /03 0 dt/k A City of Rolling 11iOE 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Vicinity Map CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO.. 595 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 l SITE t.,z74. A•. )1 1l� • • City 0`l2«nq,u,e� APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Email: cityofrh@aol.com The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-1 444 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A. proposed 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. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A x Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR a., A, /tttpur--- Signature] 1-4 • • 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. 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. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or Tess than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and " other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.595 o ® ❑ ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o o © o O ❑ ❑ IEI O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ fKI ❑ ❑ IE] ❑ 1-7 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 ❑ ❑IRI identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 0 ❑ identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict'with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 l� ❑ 0 123 0 O ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1-8 • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 cm ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ .❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-9 • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? a) b) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 El El El 0 El 0 0 0 El El El I3] IKI 1-10 • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rgi ❑ 0 IX' 0 0 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ rgi • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 I] 0 0 ❑ 1-12 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 0 CI EEI ❑ ❑ ❑Egi ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ CT Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ p Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ El XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ f ❑ ❑ 1-13 • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 110 o ❑ ❑ au o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑au ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1-14 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 ❑ ❑ ® '❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ 0 0 El 1-15 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants . shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • • 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. The sports court 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 Califomia 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling anddry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. 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 miti?ation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern Califomia, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform withlocal ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be Tess than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j. No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 r Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item Xl. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be Tess than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 • • Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. f-g. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect t o the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 0 I-20 • Ov.�9� City o le, o f(1 JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 HEARING DATE: JULY 20,1999 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 SITE LOCATION: 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 2.31ACRES APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. DONALD SLAUGHT REPRESENTATIVE:BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: MAY 1, 1999 REOUEST Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission continued the case on June 15, 1999 to allow the applicants and the neighboring property owners to work out landscaping and view preservation issues for the proposed sports court. Since the June 15, 1999 meeting, the following documents were provided by Mr. Slaught: a County grading permit issued in 1979 and finaled in 1983 for which certification by a civil engineer was required; a County building permit for a new residence with attached garage that was finaled in 1981; a 1979 Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Committee building permit approval; and two notes signed by RHCA Architectural Foreman Roger Vink, the first, dated 1981, states that the "lower pad recompacted as per County" and the second, dated 1982, is a final inspection for the residence, pool and driveway walls. At the June 15, 1999 meeting, Commissioners discussed Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views, landslide, canyon development, and noise. Landscape and viewscape plans were presented by the applicants. Mr. John Resich, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, presented testimony, reports, and letters regarding his clients' concerns about the stability of the proposed sports court pad, the proposed landscaping and views. Mr. Douglas McHattie, Bolton Engineering, representing the ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Slaughts, presented a letter from Mr. Keith Ehlert, Geologist, regarding the construction of a sports court pad that in his opinion will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. Previously, at the May 18, 1999 and May 26, 1999 meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson expressed concerns about their viewscape and the stability of the sports court pad. A letter from Mr. Johnson is attached. Mr. George W . Schramm, 27200 Sunnyridge Road, and Mr. William E. Sanders, 27136 Sunnyridge Road, expressed concerns about court lighting and were told by Chairman Roberts that court lighting is prohibited . Copies of the proposed plan signed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Mr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South; were submitted by the applicants. 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 3. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 4. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 6. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 • • . • 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies downhill between 20%, 25%, and 20%, respectively, and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 • • V and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 SPORTS COURT REQUEST ' I EXISTING RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded aree where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SO.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Residence Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Garage Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Swim Pool Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Service Yard Sports Court Stable Total 6,416 sq.ft. Total N/A None 14.1% 17.9% 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South PROPOSED No further encroachments 4,480 sq.ft. 1,280 sq.ft. 560 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2,800 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 9,666 sq.ft. 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 6 ♦ _ P_LICATION'TOR `.GR�'d NG PERMIT GGIV-CESB O712-75 -3 ' :`•" ' ` ��` --- • • FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN SITE ADDRESS M I PPLERaO6-1W 1411)- Sa. TRACT _ .•. NUMBER, -ores: OWNS w MAIL Lyllx..1 ct6 AD,ESS - ENGINEER M7CiL" ADDRESS BLOCK - &•J GRADING ' ;`/fit.3,4 CON TRACT r_// 1f �C ADDRESS r . PROPOSED USE OF GRADED SITE(S) Aar:. CHECK IF SUPERVISED GRADING SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT •. -T •-• ~•�+' - _ TE. ADDRESSL. ..`«.r.'.`=:^LV.-,.-.-.•:,.,...NO._'t.;.•�.w:.�.a_»-";_..:.: 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I -HAVE READ THIS •' APPLICATION ":ANO STATE -THAT "7:THE -ABOVE -11S CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY ORDINANCES -:'AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCA- VATING AND•GRADING. _ ;' "''- "- SIGNATURE OF.•, PERMITTEE_ AGENT FOR _ ADDRESS CUBIC YDS. HANDLED: N CH&GK yeLIDATION, LOCALITY NEAREST CROSS_ST. DISTRICT NO. MAP NO. - STATE HWY. 1 042- IYES 0 NO.X USE ZONE SPECIAL //�� - -"-. - eCONDITIONS, 6 • K t'T,S w7�ICAv�+ ET ND RE W.. OMPANY LE jl lyt /_ /BY R EC'D. •DATE SOFILED SSED BY i y w A LIMITED TIME PERMI ALL WORK AUTHORIZED MUST BE COMPLETED BY TIME LIMIT: EXTENDED TO: INITIAL DATE"! GRD. PREP. .. 7.'4/9'4)7 COMPACTION REPORT RECVD. - SUP. ENGR'S. CERT. REC'D.' ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL• °. PLANTING ANp SUP. ENGR'S.' FINAL CERT. •_..------_ _-.. _. . FINAL APPROVAL •- .•. y- SURETY BOND��jyLy RELEASED ..-. -• V �r 0, BY: ECTOR�br$IGNATURE • ermit Fee [��1..". Issuance Fee Total Fee PERMLT V1jLIDMTION .CK- 1.o �. •..• �. 0 0 .'y• - • • • INSPECTION NOTES: • 6"....._ • _.. ^. A N D S O I L.* R .E .P D . .T . S :_F P R A R D *B Y bATED ECD. ' APPRVD. i..... � E P .._ .. ... _. a . ... .... ..... . ._ . R G • ▪ ...+` ✓ � .16 ',. . .. cI i .. .. f • CD C•^ N[ 1 • J ri WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION hereby affirm that 1 have a certificate of, consent to self' , ?sure, or a certificate of Workers' Compenstaon Insurance, o' certified copy thereof (Sec. 3800, Lab. C.) ,talicy No. Company • . • Certified copy is hereby furnished. • Certified copy is filed with the county building inspec- tion department. )ate Applicant CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE (This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less.) 1 certify that in the performance of the work f r which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any perso I any manner Yo as to become subject to the Workers' nsati % - 1 7a Dote , Applicant_, NOTICE TO. AP'LICANT: If, after making this tificate of •Exemption, you should become subject to a Workers' tCompensation provisions of the Labor Code, you must forth- with comply with such provisions or this permit shall be „deemed revoked. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION • I1 hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 ;! (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and '' Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. License Number Lic. Clavc APPLICATIONFOR BUILDING PERMIT ' COUNTY OF LOa ANGELES BUILDING AND SAFETY BUILDING FOR -APPLICANT TO FILL IN ADDRESS ,; LUILDING ADDRESS 27 Mi ddl er•i dge E " CITY Rolling Hills Est. zip 90274 • NO. OF BLDGS. 1 SIZE OF LOT 1 1 /2 acreIOW ON LOT -0— TRACT 26113 I BLOCK' ' - OWNER Houshang Wekili 609 Deep Valley Dr. Laive7.-";1"—IADDRESS - Y - Contractor t; ❑ Dale I am exempt from the licensing requirements as I am a licensed architect or a registered professional engineer acting in my professional capacity (Section 7051, Business and Professions Code). Lic. or Reg. No nat. OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I om exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 7031.5, Business and Professions Code): I, as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work-and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Section 7044, Business and Professions Code). I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec- tion 7044, Business and Professions Code). CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097, Civ. C.). Lender's Name Lender's Address I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all County ordinances and State laws relating to building construction, and hereby ou orize representatives of this County to enter upon the a ntioned prop r pection purposes. Rolling Hills Est. ARCHITECT OR ,ENGINEER Young & Assoc. ZIP LOCALITY NEAREST :CROSS ST. - ASSESSOR - MAP 800K r C 7 )at'/Il.r/ d .t'_.,L . S:. PAGE (PARCEL USE ZONE MAP!' ,G LOT NO. `Z - i NO. 17 /. SPECIAL No. 541 -981 9 g COt11DITIONS DISTRICT I GROUP; TYPE CONST. 90274 No. 376-8803 EADDRESS 118 S. Catalina R.B.. CA TEL. CONTRACTOR flwnar/R1rigar NO. IADDRESS CITY pp ' SIZEFT 4398 SNO OF TORIES j - DESCRIPTION OF WORK f- Construct single family i- residence with attached gar. - USE OF EXISTING BLDG. ---_ APPLICANT (PRINT)Houshang Weki l i ADDRESs609 Deep Vallev I - PRESENT - BUILDING ADDPacc tt LOCALITY - MOVING CONTRACTOR t ADDRESS REQUIRED SET BACK FRONT P.L. SIDE P.L. LIC. NO. LIC. CLASS NO. OF 1 FAMILIES YARD HWY CHECK ONE NEW . ADD ALTER. REPAIR DEMOL No.541-9819 ♦ 1 I ) STATISTICAL CLASSIIPICATION CLASS NO. 0 / DWELL. UNITS 1i.L SEWER MAP :1! sG VALUATION a' TEL. Na Ft, • TOTAL SETBACK FROM EXIST. PROP. LINE WIDTH P.C. Fee $ .!1 - Investigation Fee • o� 3 /f%ra I Signature of plicant or Agent Dote Permit Fee /ri2r.0 a Issuance Fee Zee Total Fee / e23 • eV FINAL DATE '1 )y%',J FINAL , f,/ BY .,, /vi e. /O/40. (f FIRE ZONE 3 PROCESSED BY APT. (CONDO. VALIDATION / it „ SEE REVERSE FOR EXPLANATORY LANGUAGE es ROLLING HILLS COMIONITY SSOCIATION Building & Proper nspection 19_ Z Date " , fJ 42, Al 'ddle ri4a • • KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist June 15, 1999 Mr. J.R. Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 P=Tiffg9a if fi9'39� JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Fay SUBJECT: INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PROPOSED TENNIS COURT 27 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA I have reviewed the area of the proposed tennis court. The proposed tennis court will be located within an ancient inactive landslide. It is my opinion that construction of the tennis court and improving drainage in the area of the ancient landslide will decrease the risk of the landslide re -activating in the future. It has been my experience that in most cases, ancient landslides re- activate as a result of introduction of water into the landslide. As part of the proposed improvements, providing adequate drainage to reduce the amount of water. entering the landslide area is. imperative if reducing the risk of future landslidemovement is to be achieved. In general, it is my opinion that construction of the tennis court will reduce the risk of future landslide movement by improving drainage conditions. The opinions expressed above are based on site observations and work I performed on, the neighboring property (29 Middleridge Lane South). No guarantee of future site performance is expressed or implied. I do not know what the factor -of -safety of the existing landslide is. Any proposed grading that results in placing fill in the upper portion of the landslide likely will lower the factor -of - safety and may result in activation of the landslide. As such, no fill should be placed in the upper portion of the landslide. In addition, the proposed improvements should not include lawn areas. It has been my experience that excessive watering of lawns can re -activate landslides. Any increase in the amount of water entering the landslide will lower the factor -of -safety and could de -stabilize the landslide. 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #220 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 P.N. 4202-99L Page 2 It is my opinion that although construction of the proposed tennis court in conjunction with appropriate drainage improvements will lower the risk of landslide activation, no guarantee is expressed or implied that the landslide will not move in the future. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please contact my office. Respectfully submitted, Veit ► ( hlert Consuj; t ngNR 42nee g Geologist ,44.n Ofttti tea.:- E 11 JUN 1 51999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Rv June 14th, 1999 To Members of the Planning Commission - I had a call recently from a friend who questioned whether a sports court, sited in a - primary view direction, would have a negative impact on the value of his home. It is my opinion, based on 12 years in real estate in Palos Verdes, that there could be a substantial loss of value to his home depending on the visibility of the sports court from his home. Views are one of the major determinants of value. In fact, the City view preservation ordinance recognizes "the contribution of views to the overall character and beauty of the city". It goes on to say that the views are a "special quality of property ownership" for many homes in the city. It is my feeling that the above is especially applicable in this case. The existing (very) rural canyon view with the city as the backdrop, would lose much of it's dramatic appeal if the focal point of the immediate view was instead replaced with concrete and chain link. In order to retain as much value as possible as provided by the current view, my suggestion would be to try to mitigate the negative impact of the sports court with screening vegetation tall enough to hide the sports court from view, yet not so tall as to create it's own problem of view obstruction. Sincerely, Charlie Raine ReMax Palos Verdes • � Fred Sands PALOS VERDES REALTY 16 Malaga Cove Plaza. Palos Verdes Estates, Califomia 90274 Telephone (310) 378-1907 Facsimile (310) 378-2158 June 10, 1999 - City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission e Lane South Ken Johnson, owner of the above property, posed ecceattonal sports court to be built on rket.yaliie of bis property . ..__: 1. •-a. :3.i"it'u":: X.16'.". , - .�.. St: .'4i'v'. �'i�}ilf �`.:.. ..'�•: <t.:� • 1p- ligEHIn 1)) JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. RN, y opinion is based upon my 12 years of experience as a licensed real `estate agent on the Pali erdes Peninsula.‘ This experience has included 26 transactions involving residences in the C tilling I#i11s ;where I represented either the buyer or seller. I presently am affiliated with P Palos Verdes Realty as Director of the Estates Division. inion he proposed sports court will detiact from 'le value of Mr• Johnson's prop r th'� following ..t, two reaso :. r,: s 1; : e sports court, as proposed, will be in clear view from each and every room of Mr. Johnson's home. This situation will result in a troublesome Ioss of privacy to The Johnson family. Rolling Hills, of course, is renowned for its privacy and this is a primary objective of all potential Rolling Hills buyers. The sports court would cause such an intrusion on this privacy that it logically would negatively impact the desirability and hence the market value of Mr. Johnson's property. - • The sports court will contaminate the sweeping and tranquil views of ocean and city lights that the subject property enjoys by creating a significant distraction in the foreground. In all likelihood,this distraction would become an annoyance to most people especially when the court is in use. The quality of the view is a critically important factor in establishing value of properties on the Peninsula. A distraction such as the proposed sports court would substantially reduce the value of #29 Middleridge Lane South. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Tillson Director, Estate Division KT: fin Independently owned and operated CLDEV STATE",.; 1972o Vvei tnri Blvd., Ste: C •%oodfanil:HIIL CA' :91364 . • P1lone{31b)" 2O5=Od97' I'tf o n c (818) • 587-9494 Ph6ne (213) $7`7-1808 Fai . (818) 8831969 GOden State Appr*als, Inc. 5r ud� JUN 1 5 1999 June 9, 1999 1 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RI/ Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Diminutionof Value 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: The above referenced subject property was appraised by our firm on December 11, 1998. We will refer to our file and photographs for the purpose of supporting our statements in this letter. It is our opinion that a sports court blocking or deterring from the overall unobstructed view of the city or canyon will cause a diminution in value as a result of its construction. The overall marketability will be reduced due to the reduction in appeal. This is especially true if the sports court is the primary focal point and can be viewed from every room in the house. There is a limited supply of homes with unobstructed views. Thus, the value of the view to the overall value is a greater percentage. The only potential cure would be to allow a sunken sports court not obstructing the city view and sufficient landscaping to eliminate it as a focal point. Sincerely, 1 ') AL La ence .1-'y s, J.u., Appraiser i i NIIIEEtI "( GEOTECHNICAL �. ‘, r)40,t- DEC 0 l 1913 AAKO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. 1818 E. BALL ROAD / ANAHEIM, CA 92805-5977 / (714) 635-6570 Toll Free: (800) 422-4117 Faver Construction ' 1600 Cabrillo Avenue Torrance, California Subject: Evaluatio Residenc Los . A gel 2"/M c&ct1ev� References: 1. '. outh dated August 14', 1981. Gentlemen: 90501 Job #3841-F1-83 November 29, 1983 wer Graded Pad Downslope from Existing ddleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills '�t unty, California. Bay Engineering Corp., "As -Built Grading Plan," 2. Young & Associates, "Building Plans, Sheets 1-18," date printed January 22, 1981. 3. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Proposed Residential Construction, Lot 2,.Tract 26113, Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, California," dated September 29 & December 30, 1980, Project. Reference 2a78-02. 4. Lockwood -Singh & Associates, "Soil Creep, Lot 2, Tract 26113, ...," dated February 5, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. 5.. Lockwood Singh & Associates, "Report .of Geotechnical I.nve.sti.gation, Lot 2, Tract 26113, ... ," dated December 21, 1979, Project Reference 936-72. Presented herewith. are the results of our evaluation of the lower as -graded pad downslope from the existing residence. Our findings and conclusions are presented based on a field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. The subject property was graded and the residential structure constructed in 1981, The grading consisted of cut and fill grading to construct two level pad areas. The upper pad in the eastern end of the property had the residential structure and driveway constructed upon it. The structure is reportedly supported on a caissons and grade beam= foundation founded into competent bedrock. ;% r 3g2IINE JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hv #3841- F• -2- Based on our review of the referenced reports, there was no engineering supervision done during the grading of the site. Therefore, none of the fill soil placement was supervised or certified and all structures were required to be supported through all fill soils and into competent bedrock. A field investigation consisting of_a site inspection and subsurface exploration was conducted on November 10, 1983 and November 15, 1983. Two exploratory trenches were excavated using a rubber tire backhoe. The soils were logged by our field geologist. 'The approximate locations of th.e trenches are shown on the plot plan. The trench logs are presented in Appendix A. The trendies were backfilled upon completion of our investigation. Disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained at frequent intervals. Undisturbed samples were obtained using a drive tube in accordance with ASTM Test Method-D-2937-71 (76). tn--place density tests were also taken using the Sand Cone Method in accordance with ASTM D-1556-64 (74). Al 1'soil samples• were_ transported :to.:our. •l aboratory.. See Appendix B for laboratory test results. Based on the referenced preliminary geotechnical report (reference no. 5), the original natural earth material conditions consisted of a clay topsoil and subsoil that overlaid the bedrock to depths of 2 to 17 feet. Underlying bedrock consists of'siltstone and shale, slightly bentonitic. Grading in 1980 added a maximum of 20 feet of fill in the lower graded pad area. Based on our review of the referenced reports and our subsurface exploration, proper keys and benches were not cut into competent bedrock prior to fill placement. Fill soils were apparently placed directly on the original topsoil. Relative compaction of the fill soils were found to be 85 to 88% of maximum density. The original topsoil underlying the fill soils wasfound to be moist to wet and soft to slightly firm, indicating insuffi:ci_ent reworking of the topsoil prior to fill placement and questionable competency. The fill slope descending along the west end of the pad is finished at an inclination as steep as 1.7 to 1 (horizontal:vertical). The slope surface areas a.re soft to depths of at least 18 inches and do not have good surface compaction. A stability analysis was performed on the existing fill conditions to determine the degree of stability. Calculations were performed based on results of direct shear tests presented in Appendix B and the laboratory test results in the referenced reports. The stability analysis indicates that the lower pad area is grossly stable with a safety factor of1.90- and 1.13 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. ° AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. #38410 83 -3 Although the lower pad is determined to be grossly stable, there is a potential for some minor downhill creep of the .fill soils due to the low relative compaction of the fill soils, the 1.7:1 steepness of the fill slope, and the soft soil conditions in the fill slope face. Based on these aforementionetsonditions and the incompetency of the original topsoils_underlyinq the fill soils,., the_1ow r pad area is cletelz— mined to be_unsuitabl.er._for,the support of_an}.itructur_es.. This lower pad area may be safely used for non-structural purposes such as horse corrals or landscape areas witfiout detrimental effects or safety hazards. To increase the overall stability of this lower pad area, the following recommendations may be followed: 1. The fill slope surface should. -be overexcavated to a depth of 3 to 4 feet, properly benched, backfilled and recompacted to at least 90% of maximum -density. The slope surface should be compacted by either overfilling and cutting back to expose the compacted core or by suitable mechanical methods. 2. The pad drainage should be properly designed to ensure surface drainage away from the slopes and off the pad in a non - erodible manner. 3. Th.e slopes should be planted with a suitable deep rooted, drought resistant ground cover type vegetation to enhance the surficial stability of tfie slope. Additionally, we recommend the use of deep rooted trees and busbes to enhance the surficial stability at greater depths. To obtain a structural pad suitable for the support of a structure, 1 all th.e fill soils would have to be -removed and the original topsoil over - excavated down to competent bedrock., which would result in excavations as : great as 28 feet in depth. A keyway and benches would have to be excavated into the bedrock prior to fill placement and fill soils would have to be placed in horizontal lifts of 6 to 8 inches, properly watered or aerated to achieve optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% of maximum density. The fill slope must be finished at an inclination not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Our findings andconclusions are based on generally accepted engineering practices and principles. No further warranties are implied nor made. AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING C NJCI 11 TA nrrC Wr 11k#3841-F1 -4- This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ERY,.R.C.E. 24711 Aw �O GEOTECHNICAL f-� eENr9 EERI^N 11.0r • 0 #3841-F1-83 -5- APPENDIX A TRENCH LOGS f GEOTECHNICAL A AKO Er-NziEE 4M ,, • Logged By: RW #3841-F1 • TRENCH LOG NO. T-1 Trench Orientation- N58°W Client• Faver Construction EARTH MATERIALS siltstone/sandstone clasts, n m 0 m a E fn 1 1 cc m Q a � = P. M o 1-- SCALE: 1 6 h • -6- Job No • Date: 11/15/R3 Site- Middleridqe Lane South. Rollina Hills 5 0 • eo 1 1 1 O ,`t O tT O Q' N rf N SJ • ai 'r t- • #38419-83 - 7- TRENCH LOG NO. • T-2 Job No.: Logged By: RW Trench Orientation- N650W Date- 11/15/8; Client Faver Construction Site: Mi ddl eri dcie Lane South. Rolling Hi 11 EARTH MATERIALS siltstone/sandstone O C O •N to C to E S- wet, slightly firm to firm. Dark gray brown silty clay, GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION Sample Depth • • . r • t • • • • • • 0 r • 1 1 1 r r • #3841-F1-83 -8- APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS A.AKORAT GEOTECHNICAL ...^ Client: Fen t) 424" Technicianc5—, • #3841-F1-83 Job #: DIRECT SHEAR TEST Site: t h H,'/Js Date: f53 Soil: 7/LTY GI.Ay Sample: l 7 /fioemiche/ Test Method: ASTM D-3080-72 -9- Sample Dimensions: Diameter: (,'- Height: % /' Initial Dry Density: `7/. ,p . f Initial Moisture Content: / 'C. e>i Ultimate Value: S: C: Peak Value: 0: 2-5° C: "3i o psi Residual: 0: 2 t ° C: ZZo ,,,s.- 2500 c a 15OC -o •o a in 100C s- 4-) N s- ea s 5Or N 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Bearing Pressure (Pounds Per Sq. Ft.) o Indicates soil sample at field moisture condition. *Indicates soil sample at saturated moisture condition. * , ,-� GEOTECHNICAL • • w. #3841-F1-83 -10- APPENDIX C. SLOPE STABILITY A/� G OTECHNICAL A KO'INEERWG ?Co ---- 750 — 74.o --- -730 — 7zo— -7/0 — 700— 4,0 -- Section Slice :3G11031 A AI3P.'A Rt. Ss 13 LDG'C . ORIOINRL Ct1 Ap. Surcharge p.s.f. E$ISTI tier ORAPf Area Ft 2 2Co LC0 LCo PILL- 8 ogl(rINAL SoIL/BI%PKo $- orretzfAce. ORIGINAL. 'roPS a t t_ 55GTio N. A -A .SCALES I' .30'......... D (3EpROGK SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS p.c.f.W- lb. o(� y 8 loo 2G000 l00 CLOoo too 64000 1S$94o IR' ►40 Io' ,4SSv ')_ SOtc, PA9Am4 MA1 iPPsarc.I .2,-opsr loopC-f C WSin of Cosa WCos2K Tan $ IF' 70 7e 40 5430 13" 220 /6490 ./435-0 I 11' z20 /l 2- 9n_ i y47Sa 34.54o • CLCosd a r• r. r 41 /27Go 11 8750 43 9 zo 92 F=Ma vD i It £8-TJ-Tb8£# • Safety Factor 11/ Static 'Seismic • #3841-F1-83 -12- APPENDIX D PLOT PLAN GE0EC 7HNICAL A�O ENGINEERING „ _ 730-- 700— 5X 1n51"I Her • oFtlai AL. CTrZApe FILL oR� NA L Torsoit (3t;pRocK. oK16-11146.1- soli-/BEPKoc$.. INTERFACE S5GToN A -A Title Client FA SCALE ► 1 30' St C1iON A -A AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. Site 1818 E. Ball Road CookiRuc-t►.,r+ 13 M,oDt-ER,v&E~ LAr.e S.J744 Anaheim, CA 92805 rZoc.Vbr+A 14it.t-s e�i4i6s-S1 C/1. (714) 635-6570 • Job No. IDwg. No. 1• . • • • • TN v 70 1 ".7*.S.S..,-�`\ • Client FAVER- Corns•rRUL1l44 -444. ' 77 .SS 760 12L-o R Site 13 MID %%DC& LANe So,rri (2o'-14.1 r+ tr 1-1ILLS . GS1A16S, CA otv • 765 770• Scale I'I 301Date 11.29-53 AAKO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC. 1818 E. Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92805 (714) 635-6570 Job No. Dn . No. I394I'3 I jos 2 Dist 12.02 REVIEW OF: ❑ Grading Plan No. ❑ Geologic Report Dated ❑ Other ❑ Refer to references in review dated • OILS ENGINEERING REVIEW •E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER Design Division SOILS ENGINEERING SECTION' liddlerid a Larl.e iSouth Location Lot 2, ' r1 26113, Rolling H3.118 Developer/Owner Paver Construction Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer AAWfl Genterhni cal EnenAArine (Job 3841-F1-83 ) SHEET / OF / DISTRIBUTION ❑ . Plan Check - Building and Safety ❑ Site Engineer ❑ Geologist ❑ Soils Engineer ❑ Geology Section Geology SPoti nn ❑ distribution 0 (PLAN CHECK NO, OR DATE OF REPORT(S)1 0 Building Plan No. tic Soils Report Dated 29 November 19 3 ACTION: ❑ Plans and Reports are approved; ❑. Before approval the following .� Reports are approved information is required: Till' eEf1 conditions below, REMARKS: The gross stability calculations of the lower pad area are approved. However, as recommended by the soils engineer, this area is unsuitable tor support of any structures and should be used for non-structural purposes only. The soils engineer also should evaluate the nature of any hazards created by (a0.the soft fill slopes descending from the lower pad and (b) the driveway fill wedgebetween the house and lower pad. Hazards should be removed as recommended by the soils engineer and approved by the City and County. Prepared by Reviewed by EC20V JUN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry Date „ 1 j Dut. .Crumb 19E Site Address • GEOLOGIC REVIEWSHEETakU COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES W DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEER -FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY,SECTION 738-2161 f •r". 1 .- PI •*" 'I., •••• Developer/Owner --./ ! 1.4% v !,•••,..-.- ,-- •-•", •-• 1 es ,1 'i:-.. r. Engineer . V r ! ! •••! I' -.. % ! 4 .- ..^ ,•• , Geologist . ,.. • k.vii..-----,• :I - **-7- ; ••• ...: --1. •.. :.-! •,.- =,:e•-•,. Soils Engineer • • " 1'7, • •,%"..ei — .-, •• ,..., ,!...; '! ;.,,, e Cs., - ••• •r7 e*. ,,, - • PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) /- ///-1.-c // • /I - Location Review of: Grading Plan No. Building Plan No Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dated Other Action: O Plan is approved Plan approved subject to conditions below Remarks: Prepared b! ?: • e"") \:•• c.:•••• • y r-i ! :7! .c. ••*, e: 1'7' •••1 V" - • l'• • • , • •••• j „ •• • • .4 SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: O Pion Check ® Dist. Engineer Developer -Owner El Site Engineer . DI Geologist . Soils Engineer (-71) Geol. Sect. File WGrading Section El Plan is not approved for reasons below Submit plans for recheck /7^ /. . ', 1. I 1 • ! -1—c.--... vi/ (1 27 frt. r.: , u :,.i • , . .......r___, ...• , , r f: „,..i ...,e.. v i Li/ -.* .. • e' :• r I • . I c' t .1 Cr,' :."1 .71- i IA cr v . -L. Cit • Reviewed by v e• •••r i. .\) ) ; 11 s," 1- t.. r 4 , • •'•'? r. • • s•-• Ir I •••-• •I'•" ' • 1 Date •.• Site Address Location Developer/Owner Engineer Geologist Soils Engineer Review of:. Action: Remarks: 0 CI :GEOLOGIC REVIEWSHE COUNTY OF.• LOS'ANGELES $.: DEPARTMENT OF 'ENGINEER -FACILITIES Environmental Development Division ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION 974-,7338 7 zieJJe /4; diq r►. Are r'/ ,C o • 2 1 rn_ . 741..26 ,S•n,/lfi%'/n.ne - , T,•'./z c' !e- • e- / brunt - .5-7 A,7 h i• Fi�.Sn r PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) Grading Plan No. Building Plan No Geologic Report Dated Soils Report Dated Other 4oZ4 Pion is approved [] Plan approved subject to conditions below 11 / /y / , / lot; ni jJ c' GG!'7-S!ij to, AI it (./FCC, �j 13 / • 11 'e c C Q / 1r . / `r • Prepared by , r 01." l f7 • t 67 /1 (r !• ��• �" , / C: r / 71/-/ / J . r ./ / / : r• •' , V • SHEET OF DISTRIBUTION: ❑ Plan Check Dist. Engineer ❑ Developer -Owner ❑ S• ite Engineer © Geologist © Soils Engineer El G• eol. Sect. File 7J Grading Section J Si Plan is not approved for reasons below ®' Submit plans for recheck ') / / • • / e vW / it' 'FGI all rj r-7/�� �'rCI"?C hC/ i /1-.r/ i (a N7 s..) C r /)-Lcnf� ! f / .r7 /t / i a.S•rf �' r,s, / 1_•7•! ry �.//C/ C1•f'C/Orr{y /7; r711'_i 117 S A ca f-; , c,t / ./7E W/'// a % v*j'r ✓" v ..S e i e- L% I f'• e.-/ % r' r- Y e 5-0 / ! s �': r� / / to- �' /- i --1 r?' /i �• !J/ i" �1.� �I '/- r- % /1 .Reviewed by { d 4.7 natafl/ r' - rhy am r : //' / / :� • • • Lockwood_ Singh & Associates A CORPORATION Consulting Foundation Engineers and Geologists 9977 Jefferson Boulevard • Culver City, California 90230 Telephone: (213)870-7335; (213)836-5431 R. BRUCE LOCKWOOD. R.E.G. AWtAR SINGH. C.E. February 27, 1979 Southstone, Inc. c/o Dr. Robert E. Norcross 3655 Lomita Boulevard, Suite 209 Torrance, California 90505 Project Ref. 936-72 iMVE .d JUN 151999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Fly SUBJECT:, ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF GEOTECFIJICAL INVESTIGATION DATED DECEMBER 21, 1977 LOT 2, TRACT 26113 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: This addendum is submitted in response to a question raised by Mr. R.E. Smith, Engineering Geology Section, County of Los Angeles, in a Geologic Review Sheet dated February 8, 1979. The Review Sheet stated that, "The area of the corral has been shown as a landslide on the California Division of Mines and Geology map and as an area of slope wash and creep by the consultants.. Will a buttress be required for the 2:1 slope?" The January 3, 1979 grading plan by L.A. Young, A.I.A. Associates shows that the proposed development in the area of the corral will be mainly fill slopes. It has been recommended in our referenced report that a key of 3 feet deep into competent material be provided at the toe of the fill slopes and that the compacted fill be benched into competent material as filling progresses. This will essentially eliminate most of the slope wash and creep soils in the area. Cut slopes planned in the area will remove some of the slope wash and creep soils. The amount remaining is not considered to be significant and no JUL 1 61970 • • Proj. Ref. 936-72 2 February 27, 1979 Norcross - Middleridge buttress is considered necessary. The proposed grading should improve the stability of the area. The resulting graded slopes are considered satisfactory for the intended use. Very truly yours, LOCKWOOD-SINGH $ ASSOCIATES Awtar Singh CE 17727 AS/RBL: jmf A664( R. Bruce Lockwood CEG 204 • EDWARD CASON BEALL, AIA AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE ' EDWARD CARSON BEALL, AICP, MA GEORGE C. SHAW, NCARB, AIA MILES E. PRITZKAT SUSAN R. BEALL, ASID JULIE HEINSHEIMER, ASLAA INTERIOR DESIGN LANDSCAPE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 14, 1999 Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: In reference to Zoning Case #595 Slaught Residence 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) Through much research of the nursery stock available from the largest growers in LA County, I have determined that the best plant material available to screen the Slaught tennis court is as follows: PRUNUS CAROLINIANA - CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY As upright shrub, it can be well -branched and used as formal, clipped hedge or tall screen to 20'; trained as tree it will become broad -topped and reach 35-40', Densely foliaged with glossy green, smooth -edged; small creamy white flowers in Feb. to Apr.; small black fruit. Needs no water once established. Immediately available from Norman's Nursery in a 24" box tree, 8-9' tall x 3' round XYLOSMA CONGESTUM - XYLOSMA (zy-LOZ-muh) Usually a loose, graceful, spreading shrub that grows to 8-10' tall and as wide or wider. Can be used as a single or multitrunked tree, arching shrub, espalier on wall or fence, clipped or unclipped hedge. Leaves are shiny, yellowish -green, dean and attractive; new growth bronzy; flowers insignificant, rarely seen. Moderate watering, Immediately available from Boething Treeland in a 24" box tree, 5,5-6' tall x 2.5-3' round Yours truly, EDWARDCARSON BEALL AND ASSOCIATES 0/"CALt4'f---- einsheimer JH: smc 23727 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD FAX: (310) 375.9530 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 (310) 378-1280 E-Mail: ecbeall@aol.com City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 "MU Kenneth J Johnson MAY 14 1999 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South CITY OF ROLLING HILLS cry Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which I received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated When the original developer built 27-Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase.29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. • — 2 _ • May 13,1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planning commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenneth J c Don Slaught • • 4 1 rCity NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rollins Hills, CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The Citv of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rolling Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 . By: Lola Ungar, Plahriing Director Printed on Fiecytaed ' ij,En ri ,b • T QGT• .R+ ;A.p• t.nr, \J' D. R. /5 J S„ 253 y 71/ 256 •♦11 io r J.e y-\ a 250 \ /� 255 } 2SS1 255 M J •rr /lii9-6 ,.sn Ait yam, f \ � y'� ' 250`/ % \ � 1 • 71,1 • 254 If 1 crr CJr VI ws. , ..r:6•4„,\ •"ill • �/ k%. / + 1 / / IZ . ,.,; 1247.4 / / 4.. ) \ - /t�s-c I / i' l / l - e�...w / / •' -/ e.ee.. w. , /'� ,� , , / 1 t l-2 / / I 1 ale* Awes o •. / . t:: we. / / 1 i _t { 1 r \ - \ a/9a.se. \ \ 0 `....:...•../ I ! •Zb \1 v ;\• II L1 0 11 11 ► / Q 1 • J / I69•B / / r L • i /r ,. oqc rtireZ\y 1 _ �.— 7 .. �n ?? a. r ( r "-i vs-B 60 \ \ \ a, I O6-A gR 2.).' '-'---- 1 . e `% 2 -A %1 i /07 \ \ - ., 82-A .IS /j.i-s 1 . A / ' \ f �� 1• r /, • ,USA \ / , / � \ 63 / i /a/ssis� I c07im / / raft �``• ,� f.,e.�k. / / i ,%MG eke / `/ / / - / % ,.,,,� „e.0 V j /� / / �: / r. Asa ae /—a%�T7/— �\ ../.•i / / ,/ --,.- -1 !l0 2 \\I 1 64-/ 97 1 1. 1 / I ',,..Ar (,.,- ' M.��t i`' 1 e / , p" 1 / . dt \ \ .te ) �-I / • .wit ) a \` \ j \ 1 1/% '��\ \ '�`aa \ / / I ., \ TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS / 00 / 106-D/ Iott'4 \ \ / / / . j //1 ♦ a-�.fd �-# a.• ben N. N�� I - J It l , WI I b/ • ; ro2 \i177.09 8410 .Ic. Mai X 2 map 1 � I,1► \ / 1 /04.8 • /04-A SOi:,k 1. /02 W7 tf ♦ /04-A / ton Aci .1 e. 94 .S/07 Ae. /03-8 r.+tr/c City of Rolling Hit[ 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Vicinity Map Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge•Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE • CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 7 • • Ci4 ofieo �r,�nq J4/h APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres Attached. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section 1. 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of. Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed 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. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A x Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR USignature] 1-4 • • 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. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and. Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑rg ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-7 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 0 identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 0 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 ❑ p the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ico.raratiart: : FlpGts> jiripadt: ❑ 0 o 0 ❑ ❑ IFJ 0 ❑ 0 El 0 ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI 1-8 • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ t1 0 183 0 0 ❑ © ❑ ❑ 1-9 • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Otitiot gm t 0 ss , nthcant itigaton igntficant rimporatton, Pact- 0 0 IXI 1-1 0 • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 LEI O 0 IEJ 0 0 0 1E1 0 O 0 O 0 0 IX1 O 0 0 LEI O 0 0 181 O 0 0 10 O 0 0 1E1 • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 O CI 0 0 ❑ 0 I1 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 0 ❑ ❑' ❑ 0 0 0 1-12 • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 ❑ Police protection? ❑ 0 0 Schools? 0 0 0 Parks? 0 ❑ 0 Other public facilities? 0 ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 O 0 CI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IEl 0 IKI ❑ IE ❑ ❑ 1-13 • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but tumouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Eal ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-14 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served Iby a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 O O El ❑ ® ❑ O 0 © ❑ o o o o ❑ ❑ rm o ❑ ❑ au 1-15 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hilis Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hilis Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • • 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. The sports court 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 Califomia 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 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V.' CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern Califomia, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be Tess than significant. Mitigation Measures E. 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 Vil. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of, any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 Mitigation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with . appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. 1. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increasedtraffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 HEARING DATE: JUNE TO: HONO FROM: LOLA APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: • 0/ led/J.1 _AA 15, 1999 RABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR 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. 595 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR) RA-S-2, 2.31ACRES MR. AND MRS. DONALD SLAUGHT BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 1, 1999 REOUEST Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed a silhouette of the sports court on May 26, 1999. The Planning Commission requested that the applicants provide information about proposed landscape screening of the sports court. At the May 18, 1999 and May 26, 1999 meetings, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, expressed concerns about their viewscape and the stability of the sports court pad. A letter from Mr. Johnson is attached. Mr. George W. Schramm, 27200 Sunnyridge Road, and Mr. William E. Sanders, 27136 Sunnyridge Road, expressed concerns about court lighting. Copies of the proposed plan signed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Mr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane. South; were submitted by the applicants. 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 3. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 4. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 6. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies between 20%, 25%, and 20% and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 SPORTS COURT REQUEST RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE EXISTING I PROPOSED The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sa.ft. TOTAL 6,416 sq.ft. N/A 14.1% 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South No further encroachments Residence Garage Swim Pool Sports Court Service yard Stable TOTAL None 17.9% 4,480 sq.ft. 1,280 sq.ft. 560 sq.ft. 2,800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 450 sa.ft. 9,666 sq.ft. 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral minimum 550 square foot corral area on sports court lower building pad. b. Prohibited in front yard Not in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be ' No retaining walls for the court proposed. exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% Conforms with lot coverage limitations structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses existing lower pad area of the lot. g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 No grading proposed. cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and Planning Commission will review natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system Required condition k. Requires screening on all four sides Required condition I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with Planning Commission will review viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting Required condition n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South Dear Planning Commission Members: r] E [I MAY 1 4 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which I received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the . City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated. When the original developer built 27•Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or a1,1,..rr4;44. compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. • — 2 — • May 13 1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While 1 have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planning commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenneth J c Don Slaught Jolf- coomeos Vi 0%046es )mkdk- Vorata•c I* a • • City °Moiling _AIL NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A.SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The Citv of Rollina Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Plahriing Director Printed on Recycled Papei 1 1 >r,1,1 ' e \ T ACT. • 169•9 D.R. /50 -J / / / / / /4 4 .4R ,, \,-- / i I 4 "7 / / 2a!•A n \ \ 254 alar.h / 2s0A l V '1 L171MI /t K'A • •a5.a 4' 4 ar-A • • i, . 2MA II .• / \ cd /taa -\ j ,/ lei.\\`Qaa ► ��//cs w<, /i°Irvv) l '.t / A l / 140 AC *if I F1Cc�%i o ` `✓ / fi //: /...r... F-1 .\ , " 1 fro ��— y /' S /,' s-I !' '1. I I r • . ti� a1aA-s 7 \ 80•r \•I 1 flag:. 1 Hk AYI ` /••w1 \ - ! i rw \ 1`I�` q \ \ 1 I •`�.• / / /ao ae \\ \ / I i' 1 • L Vi: O. 1 ' ♦' ¢ \• n.r ws. • ✓ • 1M 2S3 -, 11 256 •/.. . S45 .GE. d 250 "• Y : • 255 (2SS�7 MG � y .}► / y; 250 / / `V 2u I \ , - Am" . _ -1 1 .a i .j- ' y `��� \ 1' \ \ • • CITY COT / •1 1.4 La!4 T \ \ L1=1 J • At * % ^�' 2aa•t Lack c.R **0 a.n we a 1 /4 0.0 I I: 95-/ (( I • 94 ,• I a �' T— I % , tii l '`-.► !.:7. I fs 1 } a \� f!!,•d. *•Jam. tia I Iv ti s�,. I ff • s `) �- • n/sawt. `1 a�� 00 ,♦ \ Ill/ ` 1cJV sr>a \`?v/�/ ▪ s°e 1'9. 04� 1 1 \ \ / as 1 I h 1 1 \\ \ —� �% ''l� 4 p I 106 G•\ \\ \\ �`1\'-7;;/ to�_ ��.— / <11 , �f.. 1 S,slvwc / /,I , 3 /) \ `� 106��♦ / re'r,r--4-'------:-,. eve • . o - 1 e / / 1- /c!3 f 'm 1 v 1 do: N / 1 /07 1 / / • y'-Sl 1. tr.-t7 -t 1 City of Rolling `[i(CS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 TITLE Vicinity Map CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 APPLICANT • Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught ADDRESS 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE • City APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: • 0/ leollinf flit/6 APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 . persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A. proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hoteVmotel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A x Historical Report _ Archaeological Report _ Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits _ Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. K 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR it. JIB, /?AA - INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-4 • • 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. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII; "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify,which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list . should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of .each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to Tess than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO, 595 rioorj oratta ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-7 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 ❑ ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0000*. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 11 1-8 • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 o ❑ ❑ cgi o ❑ o o o [83 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ El 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 0 ❑ ® ❑ 0 ® 0 0 1-9 • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.595 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 o ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 I-10 V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 ® ❑ El 0 O 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ' ❑ 0 El ❑ 0 ❑ 1-12 • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ El ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-13 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ IKI 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ .❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 El f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑' ® 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ 0 ❑ El supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but tumouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 1-14 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 El CI ® ❑ 0 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 1-15 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports, court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. ' • The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item ll. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitiaation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would be Tess 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. I-16 • • 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 Tess than significant. The sports court 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 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be Tess than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. White prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. 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 miti?ation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically • active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be Tess than significant. Miticiation Measures E. 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 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. , The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase ,runoff and reduce water absorption by . the placement of the : sports: court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 Mitigation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. Thesports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 • • Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department . Best Management. Practices ,(BMP's) related to solid waste..: Item XVII. ..MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 City leoffing ihito HEARING DATE: MAY 26, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com ZONING CASE NO. 595 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR) RA-S-2, 2.31ACRES MR. AND MRS. DONALD SLAUGHT BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 1, 1999 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission will view a silhouette of the sports court on Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 6:00 PM. At the May 18, 1999 meeting, Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South, expressed concerns about his viewscape and the stability of the sports court pad. A letter from Mr. Johnson is attached. Mr. George W. Schramm, 27200 Sunnyridge Road, and Mr. William E. Sanders, 27136 Sunnyridge Road, expressed concerns about court lighting. Copies of the proposed plan signed by Mr. E.E. Lohn, 9 Middleridge Lane South; Mr. Robert E. Norcross and Mrs. JoAnn R. Norcross, 11 Middleridge Lane South; were submitted by the applicants. 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 3. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot. These walls total 935 feet in length. The residence ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 �•J Printed on Recycled Paper. • • encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35-foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. A swimming pool and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 4. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). 6. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies between 20%, 25%, and 20% and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City, fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 2 • construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 SPORTS COURT REQUEST RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sa.ft. TOTAL _ 6,416 sq.ft. N/A 14.1% 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad None N/A Existing at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South PROPOSED No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS PROPOSED a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g• Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement No retaining walls for the court proposed. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an existing lower pad area of the lot. No grading proposed. Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review 11 IN City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South MAY 1 4 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which I received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only property in the City whose primary view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated When the original developer built 27•Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. • — 2 — • May 13,1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planning commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the community. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenneth J c Don Slaught r;,)> 42)/ i 4•104.* tMAINR•t60141V6 %•.o • tkuuto;fa aAitt • • Cii, arl2tlin S JUL NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 • E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Plahriing Director Printed or. Recycled Paper T- CT.' \ -sa 165.8 D.R. /50 — ✓ / $. J TIRE APPLICANT ADDRESS / a .- / c • 253 -.a'4I► 25S JJ 1 � �IT SI+fE- , . \ /' y.{ 250 / \ 255 55 /Tyams' \ # \ , la• , .1,`J2W5wc `� «I M 8r-A ;>.;1 i- i / Set►Ae. aaa-r �>.,,O£ / �\ x»a; \� b "i / ? i e ;,i / /s�n��..i , A 3.6.1Ac ~�/ ii / / \\ C i rr V --Alf:__ r'-.: • +'/ lie iyen:y 7 I Ile r �I i °' ► �,/ 1. / '� : ;,ate.• / cas.e e. ) e / J ( 17...1, t j�\ �/ / \ \ \ i . 1 1 �� \J tili saw �..� 1 b `\ I /it. a� Fa, 1 ,� yfy \ } A7d/. \\ \ / 1 .� r it \ / loos ` — 1. • rIis~4%;?" I• . r- \ J • I?\�\I IY ,W, \ \ ` L Or7 • h \ Xl/ cmlc ;. 4 1 es \\ &AMACc. 1 1 Q \ I 1! // KA C_i / 1- lSI .Il. .. AM O ,.Ol.k • 1 \N le"/ Il 2d6 1 A)90.0 . 11 V '+I Q \\ 1 ` ":1-6"... /05 \ \ \` •• / / �1t i � 1 / IOC ,�B 1 I ; r. IOw0!Ore, / \\\ re/Inr j1 IOTA : i 1 4 I 1I. - / /\� -iN. 81 40744. 94 . — 11 \ t411 M. Kit • 179 �sA. ,r .M.I4. � r•i it sst 1 �\ 91 1 1 sus nc. \ I \ \\ '' 1/L 1 V/ 1 rot Jn \ . •> / .- ti9,'0 y al 1 1 dP9t_ 1 1 /, ..,. City o f A,of�ing Has Vicinity Map Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught lob -A -fa)! oft 27 Middleridge Lane _L /o3A\\•/ jolt \ N. /03-8 • I •: dntJ/c 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE • • City ol Rolling APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: ' PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-1 s Printed on Recycled Paper. 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A. proposed 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. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 E. No N/A x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Historical Report _ Archaeological Report Paleontological Study _ Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map _ Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR ,A, Ituptir— Signature] 1-4 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. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? I11. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 o ® ❑ ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ no ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 fi 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-7 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 ❑ ❑El identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 ❑ El species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1-8 • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 IE ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI ❑ ❑ ID 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-9 • • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? e) g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 El El El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑Egi ❑ ❑ ❑ I-10 • • VI11. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ fffl ❑ 0 0 IKI ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ IE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ El o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ® ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ o ® - ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 1-12 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 ❑ 0 Police protection? 0 0 0 Schools? 0 ❑ ❑ Parks? 0 0 ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑cgi ❑ ❑ ❑ 1E1 IKI ❑ ❑ ❑au O © ❑ 0 1-13 • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but tumouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwate.r drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ Is] 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ [El ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CM ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ 0 ❑IEl ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-14 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ 0 © 0 o ❑ ❑ rffl o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑CM 1-15 • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitiaation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • 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. The sports court 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 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures E. 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 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be Tess than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be Tess than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, . increase runoff and reduce water absorption by . the placement of the sports court, 'the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 • • Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use . with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling, Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 • • Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be Tess than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect t o the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF. SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 Ci1f o/ Ro elin9 �ee, HEARING DATE: MAY 18,1999 TO: FROM: 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 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 595 27 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-B-2-UR) RA-S-2, 2.31ACRES MR. AND MRS. DONALD SLAUGHT BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 1, 1999 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 2,800 square foot sports court at the southwestern portion of the lot on a lower building pad than the residence. The proposed project as presented conforms with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). The surface of the sports court will be constructed with a resilient dark green openwork polymer material that will be fitted over a concrete base. 2. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage were constructed in 1981. Also, in 1981, a permit was issued for 3,000 square feet of retaining walls that average 3 feet in height, at the eastern and the southern portion of the lot; these walls total 935 feet in length. The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback and the retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. A swimming pool, and spa were completed in 1982. The plot plan shows a large triangular wedge of land at the northeastern portion of the property that descends to the canyon at the north and is noted as a restricted area that may have geological problems. 3. Grading for the sports court will not be required. 4. The disturbed area of the lot will be 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (40% maximum). ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 1 'J Printed on Recycled Paper. • 5. Coverage on the 19,840 square foot residential building pad is 6,416 square feet or 32.3% (Guideline of 30%) and the coverage on the 8,880 square foot sports court pad is 3,250 square feet 36.6%. Total building pad coverage will be 33.6%. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,666 square feet or 11.3% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 15,306 square feet or 17.9% (35% permitted). 7. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the southeast off Middleridge Lane South. Access to the sports court will be from an existing path off the driveway at the southeast. 8. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the northern portion of the proposed sports court's lower building pad. Access to the stable is available from Middleridge Lane South along the southeastern driveway and then diagonally north. The slope access varies between 20%, 25%, and 20% and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. 9. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. D. 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. 595 PAGE 2 • • E. 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. F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 3 SPORTS COURT REQUEST RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). GRADING Environmental and Zoning Code DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING The residence encroaches up to 15 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The existing retaining walls encroach up to 25 feet into the side yard setback and up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sa.ft. TOTAL 6,416 sq.ft. N/A 14.1% 7.5% 14.1% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad N/A 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad No further encroachments Residence 4,480 sq.ft. Garage 1,280 sq.ft. Swim Pool 560 sq.ft. Sports Court 2,800 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 9,666 sq.ft. None 17.9% 11.3% 17.9% 32.3% of 19,840 sq.ft. pad 36.6% of 8,880 sq,ft, pad 33.6% None 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad N/A Existing accessway that varies from 20% slope, 25% slope and 20% slope at southeastern portion of lot off Middleridge Lane South from existing driveway. Existing at southeastern portion of No change lot off Middleridge Lane South Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 4 • • 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area • PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral on sports court lower building pad. b. Prohibited in front yard Not in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be No retaining walls for the court proposed. exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) Conforms with lot coverage limitations f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides Planning Commission will review. Proposed on an or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses existing lower pad area of the lot. g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 No grading proposed. cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square Area of the sports court will be 2,800 sq.ft. feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and Planning Commission will review natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system Required condition k. Requires screening on all four sides Required condition I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with Planning Commission will review viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting Required condition n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 595 PAGE 5 • • Kenneth J Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS !Ay City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274 May 13,1999 RE: Zoning Case No 595: 27 Middleridge Lane South Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is in response to the zoning case referenced above, which will be presented at a Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 per the notice which I received in the mail. My family resides at 29 Middleridge Lane South adjacent to the subject property directly to the west. We are in the unique position to be the only propertyin the City. whose primary..view from every room is affected by this proposed development ( including the subject property) Prior to purchasing our home, we researched this adjacent property, in particular the lower pad where the proposed development is contemplated. When the original developer built 27 Middleridge, the lower pad was created from the excess cut material and placed on top of an existing ancient landslide without County approval or appropriate compaction. As a result of this, litigation was pursued and the ultimate resolution was to allow the fill material to remain but prohibit any structure from being built. To us, this was an important issue in our decision to purchase 29 Middleridge, knowing that our view would be preserved. We are very desirous to protect this view and prevent development, which will negatively impact the tranquility, ambiance and value of our property. By way of background, the Slaught's approached us about their desire to construct a sports court prior to their acquisition of subject property. At that time, we discussed the preservation of our view and potential noise factors that may result. We were given certain assurances that a design criteria subject to our approval would be implemented to mitigate these concerns should they proceed to purchase the property and subsequently apply for approval to develop a sports court on the lower pad. On that basis, we said that we would not oppose their plans. The minimum criteria acceptable to us is as follows: A. The entire sports court is screened from our view from day one with appropriate landscaping that provides visual and sound attenuation benefits. The landscape materials must be of a size to provide screening from the onset.. Small plantings or vines growing on a fence is not acceptable. • • — 2 — May 13, 1999 B. A covenant that is recorded with the property to maintain said landscaping at appropriate minimum levels to screen the sports court and at a maximum level so as not to obstruct our view of the canyon beyond the court. (see attached exhibit for a schematic) While I have not had the benefit of viewing the proposed plan, this criteria has been discussed in detail with the Slaught's. who requested we send a letter to the planning commission. We generally are in support of their desire to fully enjoy their property. They are very good neighbors and an asset to the conununity. We do however want to preserve our rights and our view from future owners who may not be as willing to maintain what the Slaught's have agreed to do. In as much as this lower pad has no visibility from the subject house, there could be limited incentive for future owners to maintain the landscape screening and this is of major concern to us. If the above minimum criteria is met, we will not object to this proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kenne c Don Slaught • T itpQosto srJ).°# 4);•• wet eictakau,e.1.4‘44. ‘....01)•( /*a �er teittalam;1 • • cry ol Rolling�r� NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE 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 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Plahriing Director Panted can Recycled Par,E r 0. T ACT• \. -« ss II 11 Jl JN 169-8 G.i. 17 .4C z / D. R. /50 - ✓ / / / r / J` {as' -r too ina-1 •.Ae \\ ear. .49 TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS / 7 c,rr LO' Iw As 25,3 .1J4.7 �. SSTS Mr 2.50 7. 4 ••• • ASSesw 255 • it 255 25S asisms \ 254 11 25OA •• • 1R /` 1 6.�t./sa A�. / /ab5A. ` I li /i .\ i ' Yf \ ?ad-Af7//1�,nSAWN sLAy wt , % i ,C� \ % /,s.:I A Ora%-s Ii,i. igt W KI' II 8 r AAe• . I £*92 4. 79 \ I ,1 / '," r M • 74fl 4. i w�- /sac se asla .� / 4--- -t .,�... / �I; ,,,..�.... . 0I t ---' i / / /I'` \ , 5 1. o t 4�/ �.-a�T lif i I 1 / �, 9 \ \`\ i / 1 r '`\\ �2`Qa�l 1 / / • as canAr•. / /00.\\:\L `�— _(l I 1 zae - r \ A /9a As. \ \ -0 •✓ . 2 - \ 1 `\• 0 y Of\ A7/ / 1 \ 11 p 1 • h I I ``` ` \� \ s. L\\\ / 11 \- \\.��—�-� / t I ! �• 1 C +1>r \71 \ \ 106 C \ • , \ \ L_� ........7/,' toG-cr 1...s. ‘ irk,. :fcz.:6„..,00Ac. \\ liovar. , \ / J,e?Ak V ,#°;;; eas-A 111 1, i� • .O2k 11 I." . 94 S/f7 As. 93 its* As. fi L_ 06 cI55At. A03-A \\ • /03.8 City of Raring Has 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Vicinity Map CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Rills, CA 90274 SITE i • • City 0/ Rolling APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: , LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres 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 Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No X 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A. proposed 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. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.). The project site is a 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily 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 No N/A x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 x Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR a. / ,, USignature] 1-4 • • 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. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where .they are available .for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 • • Issues: 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IXI 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI 0 1-7 • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 ❑ the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.595 ❑ ❑ 1171 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ E1 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-8 • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ El 0 0 ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-9 • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ IHI ❑ ❑ ❑Egi ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1-10 • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater. drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ® 0 El ® ❑ ❑ o o o ❑ ❑ o o o o IKI o o ❑ 'xi o ❑ ❑ O o ❑ ❑ IEI • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) -Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 El 0 0 O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ D IXI 0 0 0 0 1-12 • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑rffl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ix! ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 El ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 rill ❑ ❑ ❑ I ❑ © ❑ ❑ 1-13 • • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but tumouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ au ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑' Ix] ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o ❑ IKI ❑ o o ® ❑ 1-14 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. 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 examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) 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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 o • ,• !xi !xi [xi 1-1 5 • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitiaation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • • 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. The sports court 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. 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 thefind 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit - unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform withlocal ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction 'Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage . patterns, . increase runoff and reduce water absorption by :.the placement of the sports court, the introduction of -'pervious • and impervious surface materials 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. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. 9 J• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 • • Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be Tess than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic ' noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H., The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling. Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 • • Mitiaation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. f-g. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be Tess than significant. Mitiaation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect t o the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. ItemXVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF°SIGNIFICANCE.- a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20