664, Construct a 140 sq. ft. equine, Resolutions & Approval Conditions( •
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND VARIANCES TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT
COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) IN
ZONING CASE NO. 664. (GORDON).
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. Errol Gordon
with respect to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling
Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review and Variances to exceed the maximum
structural lot coverage and to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted
in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence.
Section 2. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Variance to
construct an addition and covered porch, portions of which would encroach into
the rear yard setback. After the Planning Commission field trip and public
hearing, the applicants revised their proposal so that a Variance for encroachment
would not be required.
Section 3. During the proceedings for the proposal, it was determined
that a horse shelter structure is located in the front yard setback on subject
property, which would also require a Variance, if retained. The shelter shall be
removed as a condition of this approval.
Section 4. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212
square -foot addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the maximum
permitted structural lot coverage. Also, Resolution No. 2000-17 adopted by the
Planning Commission on August 15, 2000, contains a condition, which requires
that any new construction on subject property be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. Therefore, the proposed addition of 762 square foot to the
residence and 141 square foot of porches require a Site Plan Review. The 212
square foot addition was completed in July 2001.
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the application on May 20, 2003, July 15, 2003, and August
19, 2003 and at a field trip visit on June 3, 2003. The applicants were notified of the
public hearing in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented
from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the
City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied
said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the
hearings.
Resolution 2003-17 1
• •
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than
20 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because
coverage by structures will cover 23.7% of the net lot area. Section 17.16.070(A)(2)
states that coverage by all impervious surfaces shall not be more than 35 percent
of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because coverage by
impervious surfaces will cover 36.4% of the net lot area. With respect to this
request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the structural lot
coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage are necessary because the lot
is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long and narrow and
irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing
development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variances are
necessary because the home is relatively small and modest, and the applicants
are requesting a modest residential addition. The homes in the vicinity of subject
residence are on the average larger than this house, including the 762 square foot
addition.
C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. All development will occur
within existing setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse
visual impact to surrounding properties. Development on the site will be limited
to 23.7% and the total impervious surfaces including the structures will be
limited to 36.4%, which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain
undeveloped.
Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a
grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any
expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
Resolution 2003-17 2
• •
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of
the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month
period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting 762 square
foot addition, 141 square foot porches at an existing single-family residence
would normally not require a Site Plan Review. However, due to the restriction
placed in Resolution No. 2000-17 granted on August 15, 2000, on any future
development on subject property, a Site Plan Review is required. In regards to
the Site Plan Review application the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures
comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setbacks, except for the existing stable, and lot
coverage requirements. The proposed project is in the rear of the residence and
not visible from the roadway, so as to reduce the visual impact of the
development.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The proposed additions will be constructed on an existing
building pad and will utilize for most part already existing impervious surfaces.
The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the additions
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 proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot
coverage will exceed the maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is
consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in
the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed and minimal additional
disturbance will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the new additions will not cause the
lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped
so as to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize
an existing driveway.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Resolution 2003-17 3
• •
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 7 and Section 8
of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan
Review and Variances for Zoning Case No. 664 to permit 762 square foot
residential additions, 141 square foot covered porches/trellis and to exceed lot
coverage by structures of 23.7%, and by impervious surfaces of 36.4% subject to
the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within one year
from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in
Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been
given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has
been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails
to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the
City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must
be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of
the Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering
Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 13,
2003, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and
corral area of sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto
in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. The horse shelter structure, located in the front yard setback, shall
be removed prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 23.7%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 7 of this
Resolution.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
20,491 square feet or 36.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations
approved in Section 7 of this Resolution.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,512 square feet or
37.6% in conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations.
Resolution 2003-17 4
• •
J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square
foot building pad shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 39.0%.
K. There shall be no grading for the project.
L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as
not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
M. Landscaping 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.
N. 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.
O. 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.
P. 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.
Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water to the rear of the lot at the west.
R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the
elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2001 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.
• S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the
project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby
roadway easements.
T. 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.
Resolution 2003-17 5
•
U. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water
from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed
in an approved manner.
V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2001 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.
W. 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.
X. 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.
Y. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of any permit.
Z. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan
described in Condition D.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project, which would
constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Section
17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
AD. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which
apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
Resolution 2003-17 6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003.
ARVEL WIITE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
('a. k :IAA.)
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution 2003-17 7
'a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND VARIANCES TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT
COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) IN
ZONING CASE NO. 664, (GORDON).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 16, 2003 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta and Chairman Witte.
NOES: Commissioner Sommer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
►'�`1.a� KAI
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution 2003-17 8
RESOLUTION NO. 946111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED'STRUCTURAL
LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE
NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) (GORDON).
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. Errol Gordon with respect
to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan
Review and Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and to exceed the
maximum total lot coverage permitted in order to construct an addition to an existing single
family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application on May 20, 2003, July 15, 2003, and August 19, 2003 and at a field trip
visit on. June 3, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class
mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal
and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed
and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the
hearings. At the September 16, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the subject project by
Resolution No. 2003-17, by a vote of 4-1.
Section 3. At the September 22, 2003 City Council meeting the City Council took
jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 664.
Section 4. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the
application on October 13, 2003, October 27, 2003, and at a site visit on October 21, 2003. Staff
accompanied Councilmember Lay to visit the project site on October 22, 2003. The applicants
were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and
from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied
said proposal.
Section 5. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Variance to construct an
addition and covered porch, portions of which would encroach into the rear yard setback. After
the Planning Commission field trip and public hearing, the applicants revised their proposal so
that a Variance for encroachment would not be required.
Section 6. During the proceedings for the proposal, it was determined that a horse
shelter structure is located in the front yard setback on subject property, which, if retained,
would also require a Variance. The shelter shall be removed as a condition of this approval.
Section 7. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212 square -foot
addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot
coverage. Also, Resolution No. 2000-17 adopted by the Planning Commission on August 15,
2000, contains a condition, which requires that any new construction on subject property be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the proposed addition of 762 square foot to
the residence and 141 square foot of porches require a Site Plan Review. The 212 square foot
addition was completed in July 2001.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption
[State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 9. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable
to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section
17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net
lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover
23.7% of the net lot area. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) states that coverage by all impervious surfaces
shall not be more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance
because coverage by impervious surfaces will cover 36.4% of the net lot area. With respect to
this request for Variances, the City Council finds as follows:
Resolution No. 946 -1-
A. There are exTptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable
to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same
zone. The Variance for the structural lot coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage
are necessary because the lot is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long
and narrow and irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing
development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied
to the property in question. The Variances are necessary because the home is relatively small
and modest, and the applicants are requesting a modest residential addition. The homes in the
vicinity of subject residence are on the average larger than this house, including the 762 square
foot addition.
C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located. All development will occur within existing setbacks and will be
adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties.
Development on the site will be limited to 23.7% and the total impervious surfaces including
the structures will be limited to 36.4%, which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to
remain undeveloped.
Section 10. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site
plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing
buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the
building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With
respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting 762 square foot addition, 141 square foot
porches at an existing single-family residence would normally not require a Site Plan Review.
However, due to the restriction placed in Resolution No. 2000-17 granted on August 15, 2000,
on any future development on subject property, a Site Plan Review is required. In regards to
the Site Plan Review application the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setbacks, except
for the existing stable, and lot coverage requirements. The proposed project is in the rear of the
residence and not visible from the roadway, so as to reduce the visual impact of the
development.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot.
The proposed additions will be constructed on an existing building pad and will utilize for
most part already existing impervious surfaces. The project is of sufficient distance from
nearby residences so that the additions 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 proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot coverage will exceed the
maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed
and minimal additional disturbance will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the maximum extent
feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot and the new additions will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions
of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not
change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Resolution No. 946 -2-
Section 11. Based n the foregoing findings in Section 9 ar ction 10 of this
Resolution, the City Coun ereby approves the Site Plan Review and lances in Zoning
Case No. 664 to permit 762 square foot residential additions, 141 square foot covered
porches/trellis and to exceed lot coverage by structures of 23.7%, and by impervious surfaces
of 36.4% subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of
these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof
are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall
lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the
opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter
the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. This shall
include, but not be limited to, the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of
Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 13, 2003, except as otherwise provided in
these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and corral area of
sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto in conformance with site
plan review limitations.
F. The horse shelter structure, located in the front yard setback, shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permits for the addition.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 23.7% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this Resolution.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 20,491 square
feet or 36.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this
Resolution.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,512 square feet or 37.6% in
conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations.
J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square foot building
pad shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 39.0%.
K. There shall be no grading for this project.
L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
M. Landscaping 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.
N. 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.
O. 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.
Resolution No. 946 -3-
P. During cons ion, conformance with the air quality agement district
requirements, stormwater ollution prevention practices, county and al 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.
Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the rear of
the lot at the west.
R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2001 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.
S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if
necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements.
T. 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.
U. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and
the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water from any site irrigation systems
and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner.
V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the
2001 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.
W. 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.
X. 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.
Y. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permit.
Z. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would constitute additional
structural development or grading, shall require the filing of a new application for approval
by the Planning Commission.
AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los
Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the City Council must be
submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this
Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AD. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which apply, must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003.
(,`op
FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR
Resolution No. 946 -4-
ATTEST:
MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 946 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL
LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) (GORDON).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 10, 2003 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and
Mayor Hill.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
nikelA �, ) k
DEPUTY CITY(tLERK
Resolution No. 946 -5-
4
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
§§
ZONING CASE NO. 664
SITE PLAN REVIEW X X
VARIANCE X X
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 664
SITE PLAN REVIEW XX
VARIANCE XX
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature Signature
Name typed or printed Name typed or printed
Address Address
City/State City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally appeared
T Recorder's Use Only
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
•
•9
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is
entered into as of the dates set forth below by and between the
City of Rolling Hilis,a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City")and Errol Jay and Joeann Gordon, individuals (hereinafter
"Gordon").
RECITALS
A. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 15.04.100
and 17.16.190 provide that no more than 200 square feet of re-
roofing may match existing roofing materials where the existing
roof is covered with wood shake or shingles.
B. Pursuant to Building Permit No. BL1202007200046
Gordon performed a remodeling project at his residence located at
15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, during the course of which
more than 200 square feet of new wood shake material was
installed on the roof.
C. City contends that the roofing work was
unauthorized by the Building Permit and in violation of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
D. Gordon contends that the re -roofing was authorized
by the approved plans and permits.
E. There exists a dispute between the parties as to
whether the new roofing material must be removed and the
structure re -roofed with a Class A roof covering in compliance
with the Municipal Code.
F. The parties have each determined that it is in
their respective interests to settle the dispute in the manner
prescribed by and set forth hereunder in this Agreement.
G. •It is the intent of the parties in entering into
this Agreement to effectuate an orderly and amicable resolution
of the dispute.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of
the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, it is
hereby stipulated by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Parties. The parties to this Agreement are:
(a) The City of Rolling Hills, a municipal
corporation.
(b) Errol Jay Gordon, an individual and Joeann
Gordon, an individual.
W8390\1010\644331.1
• •
2. Re-Roofina of Residence. Gordon shall re -roof the
entire residential structure (house and garage)located at 15
Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills within three (3) years of the date
of execution hereof. The roof shall be covered with a roof
covering acceptable to the City and the Rolling Hills Community
Association.
3. Citv's Remedies. City agrees to forbear from
taking enforcement'action against Gordon relative to the re-
roofing of the subject structure until and unless Gordon fails to
re -roof within the time period set forth in Paragraph 2 above.
Should Gordon fail to comply with the obligation set forth in
Paragraph 2, Gordon agrees that City may record the lien attached
hereto as Exhibit A. Gordon hereby waives the right to contest
the recordation of the lien as above provided.
4. Release of Lien. It is mutually understood that
Gordon may refinance the mortgage on the property notwithstanding
the within agreement and possible lien. In such event, and if
the lien has been recorded as provided in Paragraph 3 above, City
agrees to release the lien as long as the lender segregates and
dedicates the necessary funds, up to $30,000,to re -roof the
structures as contemplated herein, in an escrow account or in
another manner sufficient to ensure the re -roofing contemplated
herein.
5. Aareement Binding. This agreement shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the officers, agents,
employees, consultants, independent contractors, members, heirs,
successors, assigns and delegees of the parties herein. Any such
assignee or delegee shall be fully bound by each and every
applicable term and condition of this Agreement as though a
signatory thereto.
6. Deny Liability. It is understood and agreed that
this Agreement is the compromise of disputed claims, and that the
terms and conditions recited hereinabove are not to be construed
as an admission of liability on the part of the parties, and that
said parties deny liability therefor and intend merely to avoid
litigation.
7. Entire Aareement. It is understood and agreed
that no promise, inducement or agreement not herein expressed has
been made to the undersigned, and that this Agreement contains
the entire agreement between the parties hereto with reference
solely to the matters herein addressed. All prior discussions
and negotiations have been and are merged and integrated into,
and are superseded by, this Agreement.
8. Advice of Counsel. The advice of legal counsel
has been obtained by the parties prior to the execution of this
Agreement. All parties hereby execute this settlement
voluntarily with full knowledge of its significance.
W8390\1010\644331.1 - 2
• •
9. Enforcement of Aareement. In the event of a
violation of this Agreement, the parties shall have available all
remedies at law or in equity available, which remedies shall
include, by way of illustration but not limitation, suits for
injunctive or declaratory relief, specific performance, relief in
the nature of mandamus or actions for damages; all of said
remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another,
and the exercise of any one or more of said remedies shall not
constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other
available remedy.
10. Interpretation. This Agreement is deemed to have
been prepared by all of the parties hereto, and any uncertainty
or ambiguity herein shall not be interpreted against the drafter,
but rather, if such ambiguity or uncertainty exists, shall be
interpreted according to the applicable rules of interpretation
of contracts.
11. Authority. The persons so signing this Agreement
hereby warrant that they have full authority to sign this
Agreement on behalf of the respective parties on whose behalf
they sign, as well as their officers, agents, employees,
consultants and independent contractors.
12. Costs. Each of the parties shall bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees in connection with the matters leading
up to and the negotiation of this Agreement.
13. Final Approval of Construction. Upon execution of
this Agreement, City shall issue final approval of the
construction performed at 15 Eastfield Drive pursuant to Building
Permit No. BL0007200046, Electrical Permit No. EL0010180064,
Mechanical Permit No. ME0010180011 and Plumbing Permit No.
PL0010180009.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed by each of them and/or by their
respective and duly authorized representatives on the date set
forth below.
Dated: - I -OI
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By: f�
City Manager
W8390\1010\644331.1 3
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Dated:
Dated:
7107/0
7-/(%-U1
By:
Errol Jay Gordon
Joeann Gordon
B y :
1,4ann Gordon
W8390\1010\644331.1 - 4
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HII.I S
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HII ,I S, CA 90274
(Exempt from filing fees)
Above for Recorder's Use Only
NOTICE OF LIEN
(15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California)
PROPERTY OWNERS: Errol Jay Gordon and Joeann Gordon, currently residing at 15
Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274.
Legal Description
The real property upon which a lien is claimed is that certain parcel of land lying and being
in the City of Rolling Hills, County. of Los Angeles, State of California, and particularly described
as follows (the "Property"):
Lot: 52
Parcel: 11
Tract: 29529
in the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map
recorded in Book 7567, page 2 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
Common Description
15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California 90274
Gordons have failed to construct a new roof on the residential structure on the
above -described property as required by Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 15.04.100 and
17.16.190 and their agreement with the City dated . 2001.
Pursuant to the authority vested by the provisions of the Uniform Building Code,
adopted by reference by Section 15.04.010 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, and pursuant to
the agreement entered into by and between the Gordons and the City of Rolling Hills dated June
, 2001, Gordons are obligated to re -roof the residential structure on the above -referenced
property in order to resolve the dispute described in the aforementioned agreement. The City
does hereby claim a lien for the cost of said re -roofing in the amount of $30,000, and the same
GORDONLIEN
shall be a lien upon said real property until the structure has been re -roofed in accordance with
the provisions of the Municipal Code.
This lien shall run with all of the above described land and shall be binding upon
Gordon and all future owners, encumbrances, their successors, heirs or assignees and shall
continue in effect until released by the authority of the Building Official of the City of Rolling
Hills upon submittal of request and evidence that this Lien is no longer required by law. This
lien may be satisfied upon a sale of the property, or a refinance of the mortgage thereon, if the
escrow or title company handling said transaction segregates and dedicates the necessary funds, up
to $30,000, to re -roof the residence and garage on the property, in an escrow account, or in
another manner sufficient to ensure the re -roofing contemplated herein.
CITY OF ROLLING HII ,I S,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Craig Nealis
City Manager
Dated: June , 2001
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared , personally known to
me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
within instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
2
Notary Public