Loading...
473, Construct a cabana, Staff ReportsDecember 17,1992 TO: MEMORANDUM Lola Ungar, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 ATTENTION: Craig Nealis, City Manager • FROM: sheimer, Landscape Consultant SUBJECT: Zonin'," ase No. 473 1 Morgan Lane Rolling Hills, California The landscape plan submitted is consistent with the requirements of the Site Plan Review in that all existing trees and shrubs removed during grading will be replaced with like kind. The plant material specified at the street level is appropriate screening and consistent with existing. The cost estimate is standard. The plan is approved as submitted. • • City 0/ Rollin INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 AGENDA ITEM 3-A MEETING DATE 9-14-92 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 473A RESOLUTION NO. 92-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. Mr. and Mrs. William Hoover, 1 Morgan Lane (Lot 170- 1-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission reconsidered a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and approved the subject resolution on September 3, 1992. 2. The subject case was previously taken under jurisdiction by the City Council on May 11, 1992. The case had been approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-17, dated May 9, 1992. 3. On June 8, 1992, the City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission for consideration based on the Planning Commission's policy related to structural calculations and building pad coverage, and other similar projects previously proposed in the vicinity. 4. Previous calculations included tennis courts as a "structure" in lot coverage calculations but, did not include the tennis court in calculating "building pad coverage." 5. Since that time, the applicant reconfigured plans, reducing the size of the tennis court to 7,082 square feet. RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 PAGE 2 6. And, as requested by the Planning Commission, staff researched projects previously proposed in the vicinity of Morgan Lane with the following results: STRUCTURAL TOTAL BLDG. MORG APPROVED/ LOT COV. LOT PAD LANE DENIED DATE COURT SIZE PROPOSED COV. COV. 4 CC Denied 5/8/89 6,750 sq.ft. 19.9% 31.5% 43.5% 3 PC Approved 7/8/89 2,450 sq.ft. 9.3% 17.1% 41.1% 2 PC Denied 11/14/89 7,200 sq.ft. 15.7% 25.8% 37.4% 1 ZC 473A PRESENT 7,082 sq.ft. 15.0% 22.8% 34.89% PROPOSED 7. The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 8. The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,082 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 9. The structural lot coverage proposed is 14,867 square feet or 15.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 22,590 square feet or 22.8% which are less than maximum coverage requirements. 10. The overall building pad coverage proposed is 14,671 square feet or 34.89%, including the tennis court. 11. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. 'RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 92-26. RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. William R. Hoover with respect to real property located at 1 Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 170-1- MS) requesting .a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool cabana and requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Conditional Use Permits on February 18, 1992, March 17, 1992, and April 28, 1992 and at field trip visits on February 29, 1992 and March 28, 1992. Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-17 in Zoning Case No. 473 on May 9, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on May 11, 1992 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on May 26, 1992, and June 8, 1992, and at a field trip visit on May 26, 1992. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission for consideration based on the Planning Commission's policy related to structural calculations and building pad coverage, and other similar projects previously proposed in the vicinity. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on July 21, 1992 and August 18, 1992, and at a field trip visit on August 6, 1992. The purpose of the hearing was to reconsider the Development Plan for the applications for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool cabana and a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a proposed detached 742 square foot pool cabana approximately 22 feet west of the existing residence as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.G of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a detached pool cabana provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 6. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached pool cabana, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be located on the westerly edge of the building pad which is not visually prominent and cannot be viewed from Morgan Lane. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 PAGE 2 B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with similar- recreational uses in the community. The area proposed for the cabana will be located in an area of the property where such use will not impact surrounding properties and will be in back of and screened by the existing single family residence. C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. and General Plan, because the proposed project will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana in Zoning Case No. 473 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 8. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 7,082 square foot tennis court as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court under certain conditions. Section 9. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar recreational uses in the community, the area proposed for the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.62 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. This application is distinguished from other tennis court applications because it will not result in the overdevelopment of the building pad, will not encroach into a required side or rear yard setback, and will not be visually obtrusive to surrounding and adjacent residences. C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of' the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will not impact the view or the privacy of neighbors and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The tennis court will not be visible from Morgan Lane and the gentle slope of the land still gives a feeling of spaciousness to . the pad. The tennis court will have a baffle screen which will be obscured by landscaping. The new court will be 35 feet from the north property line and adjacent to a paddle tennis court on neighboring property at 3 Morgan Lane. • RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 PAGE 3 Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 7,082 square foot tennis court in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto for a tennis court in Zoning Case No. 473 subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 7,082 square foot tennis court as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and approved in Sections 7 and 10, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the cabana and court are located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15.0% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22.9%. G. The overall building pad coverage, including the tennis court, shall not exceed 34.89%. H. The pool cabana shall have no kitchen or cooking facilities. I. All grading required for the construction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred (1,700) cubic yards. size. J. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 7,082 square feet in K. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 PAGE 4 L. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. M. Existing shrubs and trees along the north side of the tennis court shall be retained and maintained during construction of the court. N. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening, shall be provided for the tennis court and shall be maintained so as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. 0. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. P. Court lighting shall not be permitted. Q. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than two and a half (2.5) feet in height. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. R. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of persons on surrounding properties. S. The tennis court shall not be used for purposes of providing tennis lessons by a tennis professional to persons outside the immediate family of the owner. T. Separate building permits shall be obtained for the pool cabana and the tennis court. U. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 PAGE 5 V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. W. The working drawings' submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. X. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effectiv e. Y. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Condition B, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TJU-S-3 D DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992. ATTEST: , k Le), ArN) MARILYN KER DEPUTY CITY CLERK ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN The foregoing Resolution No. 92-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA, REAPPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on September 3, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Frost, Hawkins and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Lay and Raine ABSTAIN: None . DEPUTY CI CLERK HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • City ./ RO/A4 Jh/'h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AUGUST 18, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 473A 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ JULY 11, 1992 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Reconsideration of a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed a staking of the proposed tennis court on August 6, 1992. At that time, the Commission received a copy of calculations for similar projects proposed on Morgan Lane (attached). Overlays will be available at the meeting showing the basis for the calculations. 2. Since that time, the applicant reconfigured plans, reducing the size of the tennis court to 7,082 square feet. 3. The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,082 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 4. The applicants also request a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 14,867 square feet or 15.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 22,590 square feet or 22.9% which are less than maximum coverage requirements. 6. The overall building pad coverage proposed is 14,671 square feet or 34.89°%, including the tennis court. ZONING CASE NO. 473A PAGE 2 7. Denials of similar projects were based on visibility of the tennis court to vehicular, pedestrian and equestrian traffic; visibly intrusive to properties in surrounding areas, the coverage on the lot may result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation; and conflicts with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. 8. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. 9. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the subject case and take • public testimony. DATE: AUGUST 18, 1992 SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL COURTS ON MORGAN LANE As requested by the Planning Commission on July 21, 1992, staff researched each case and calculated building pad coverages for each of the proposed recreational court projects on Morgan Lane. STRUCTURAL TOTAL BLDG. APPROVED/ LOT COV. LOT PAD ADD. DENIED DATE COURT SIZE'' PROPOSED COV. COV. 4 CC Denied 5/8/89 6,750 sq.ft. 19.9% 31.5% 43.5% 3 PC Approved 7/8/89 2,450 sq.ft. 9.3% 17.1% 41.1% 2 PC Denied 11/14/89 7,200 sq.ft. 15.7% 25.8% 37.4% 1 ZC 473A PRESENT 7,150 sq.ft. 15.1% 22.9% 35.1% PROPOSED • • Ci1y ofieo ffins JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 310) (2X377-1521 FAX: (MX 377-7288 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 6, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL COURTS ON MORGAN LANE As requested by the Planning Commission on July 21, 1992, staff researched each case and calculated building pad coverages for each of the proposed recreational court projects on Morgan Lane. STRUCTURAL TOTAL BLDG. APPROVED/ LOT COV. LOT PAD ADD. DENIED DATE COURT SIZE PROPOSED COV. COV. 4 CC Denied 5/8/89 6,750 sq.ft. 19.9% 31.5% 43.5% 3 PC Approved 7/8/89 2,450 sq.ft. 9.3% 17.1% 41.1% 2 PC Denied 11/14/89 7,200 sq.ft. 15.7% 25.8% 37.4% 1 ZC 473A PRESENT 7,150 sq.ft. 15.1% 22.9% 35.1% PROPOSED go • C1111 0/l2fF,.yJl,?L HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 JULY 21, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 473A 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ JULY 11, 1992 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Reconsideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. BACKGROUND 1. The subject case was taken under jurisdiction by the City Council on May 11, 1992, after it had been approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-17, dated May 9, 1992. 2. On June 8, 1992, the City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission for consideration based on the Planning Commission's current policy, with a recommendation that the Commission review their calculation methods for future applications. 3. Previous calculations included tennis courts as a "structure" in lot coverage calculations but, did not include the tennis court in calculating "building pad coverage." As requested by the City Council, the applicants recalculated lot coverage and building pad statistics and prepared plans outlining proposed building pads. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15.1% and the total lot coverage proposed is 22.9% which are within maximum coverage requirements. Residential building pad coverage proposed is 17.7% and overall building pad coverage proposed is 35.1%, including the tennis court. 4. The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,150 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. ZONING CASE NO. 473A PAGE 2 5. The applicants also request a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 6. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. 7. Following is a table listing other recent tennis/paddle tennis court proposals on Morgan Lane. Staff researched each case and noted that building pad coverages were not assessed in 1989 for these projects. STRUCTURAL TOTAL APPROVED/ LOT COVERAGE .LOT DENIED DATE COURT SIZE ADDRESS PROPOSED COVERAGE CC Denied 5/8/89 6,750 sq.ft. 4 Morgan Lane 19.9% 31.5% PC Approved 7/8/89 2,450 sq.ft. 3 Morgan Lane 9.3% 17.1% PC Denied 11/14/89 7,200 sq.ft. 2 Morgan Lane 15.7% 25.8% 8. Denials were based on visibility of the tennis court to vehicular, pedestrian and equestrian traffic; visibly intrusive to properties in surrounding areas, lot coverage may result in a densely developed parcel, little room left for open space areas and natural vegetation; and conflicts with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. 9. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the subject case and take public testimony. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. 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. William R. Hoover with respect to real property located at 1 Morgan Lane. Rolling Hills (Lot 170-1- MS) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool cabana and requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Conditional Use Permits on February 18. 1992. March 17, 1992. and April 28, 1992 and at field trip visits on February 29, 1992 and March 28, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and hereby adopt the Negative Declaration which accompanied this item, which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of' a proposed detached 742 square foot pool cabana approximately 22 feet west of the existing residence as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.G of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a detached pool cabana provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 5. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be located on the westerly edge of the building pad which is not visually prominent and cannot be viewed from Morgan Lane. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with similar recreational uses in the community. The area proposed for the cabana will be located in an area of the property where such use will not impact surrounding properties and will be in back of and screened by the existing single family residence. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 2 Section 7. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 7,150 square foot tennis court as shown in Exhibit A. Section .17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court under certain conditions. Section. 8. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar recreational uses in the community, the area proposed for the court will be located in an area of the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.62 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will.not impact the view or the privacy of neighbors and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The tennis court will have a baffle screen which will be obscured by landscaping. The new court will be 35 feet from the north property line and adjacent to a paddle tennis court on neighboring property at 3 Morgan Lane. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 7,150 square foot tennis court in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto for a tennis court in Zoning Case No. 473 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 7,150 square foot tennis court as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and approved in Sections 6 and 9, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 3 C. All .requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with .unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the cabana and court are located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15.0% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22.9%. G. The pool cabana shall have no kitchen or cooking facilities. H. All grading required for the construction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred (1,700) cubic yards. I. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 7.150 square feet in size. J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. K. .& drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. L. Existing shrubs and trees alongthe north side of the tennis court shall be retained and maintained during construction of the court. M. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening, shall be provided for the tennis court and shall be maintained so as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. N. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 4 A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. P. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than two and a half (2.5) feet in height. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. Q. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of' persons on surrounding properties. R. The tennis court shall not he used for purposes of providing tennis lessons by a tennis professional to persons outside the immediate family of the owner. S. Separate building permits shall be obtained for the pool cabana and the tennis court. T. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology. soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. V. The working drawings 'submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. W. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. X. All conditions of this •Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Condition B, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 5 PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED TH AND DAY or MAY. 1992. GALLAN ROBRTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Cep _s DIA E SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on May 2, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts None None ABSTAIN: None dtatA1446, DEPUTY CITY CLERK V G!t HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • 0/ Affinv INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 JUNE 16, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 ZONING CASE .NO. 474 73 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT Lot 69-E-2-MS) RAS-2, 2.78 ACRES MR. AND MRS. MOON KIM MR. RICHARD LINDE, AIA APRIL 18, 1992 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a detached semi -subterranean garage at a single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants request further continuance to the July 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as they have been out of town and would like to reconsider their Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and continue the item to the July 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. 40 Ci1y op Rolling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ITEM J A MEETING DATE 6/8/92 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. OWNERS: MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER ADDRESS: 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) BACKGROUND 1. As requested by the City Council, the applicants recalculated lot coverage and building pad statistics and prepared plans outlining proposed building pads. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15.1% and the total lot coverage proposed is 22. 9 0 . The building pad coverage proposed is 35.1%, including the tennis court. 2. The applicants request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,150 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 3. The applicants also request a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 4. The subject case was taken under jurisdiction by the City Council on May 11, 1992, after the Planning Commission approved the subject Resolution on May 9, 1992. The City Council viewed a staking of the proposed project at the subject site on May 26, 1992. 5. Following is a table listing other recent tennis/paddle tennis court proposals on Morgan Lane. Staff researched each case and noted that building pad coverages were not assessed in 1989 for these projects. APPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 2 STRUCTURAL TOTAL APPROVED/ LOT COVERAGE LOT DENIED DATE COURT SIZE ADDRESS PROPOSED COVERAGE CC Denied 5/8/89 6,750 sq.ft. 4 Morgan Lane 19.9% 31.5% PC Approved 7/8/89 2,450 sq.ft. 3 Morgan Lane 9.3% 17.1% PC Denied 11/14/89 7,200 sq.ft. 2 Morgan Lane 15.7% 25.8% 6. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. 7. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION The City Council should take into consideration the visibility of the cabana and tennis court to vehicular, pedestrian and equestrian traffic; that both the cabana and tennis court may be visibly intrusive to properties in surrounding areas, that the coverage on the lot may result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation; and possibly conflicts with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the cabana and approve the tennis court. 2. Approve the cabana and request reduction in the size of the tennis court. 3. Approve the cabana and deny the tennis court. 4. Deny the cabana and deny the tennis court. 5. Refer this item back to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council refer this item back to the Planning Commission to review the subject case with the tennis court included in the building pad calculation. • City leoffiny Jlift6 AGENDA ITEM b A MEETING DATE 5/26/92 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. OWNERS: MR. AND MR.S. WILLIAM R. HOOVER ADDRESS: 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The City Council will have viewed a staking of the proposed project at the subject site at 6:45 PM today. 2. The Planning Commission approved the subject Resolution on May 9, 1992. 3. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,150 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 4. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 5. Attached is a listing of other recent tennis/paddle tennis court proposals on Morgan Lane. 6. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 22.9% (35% permitted). 8. The building pad coverage proposed is 17.7%. 9. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. APPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION, It is recommended that the City Council review the plans and take public testimony. RECENT TENNIS COURT PROPOSALS ON MORGAN LANE 1. On May 8. 1989 (Resolution No. 593), the City Council denied a request for a 6,750 square foot tennis court at 4 Morgan Lane by Mr. Ivan Stamegna (ISCO). The findings for denial stated that the proposed tennis court together with existing structures would result in over -development of the lot and would be highly visible from neighboring properties. The structural lot coverage proposed was 19.9%. 2. On July 8, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-17), the Planning Commission approved a request for a '2.450 square foot paddle tennis court at 3 Morgan Lane by Mr. Gerry Ginsberg. The structural lot coverage including the paddle tennis court approved was 9.3% which is less than the maximum 20% lot coverage requirement. 3. On November 14, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-28), the Planning Commission denied a request for a 7,200 square foot tennis court at .2 Morgan Lane by Mr. Michael Gray. The findings for denial included the following: That the tennis court placed on this triangular shaped lot would be visible to vehicular, equestrian, and pedestrian traffic ingressing and egressing the Morgan Lane area, and would be visibly intrusive to properties in the surrounding area, the tennis court together with existing structures on the triangular -shaped lot, would cover nearly all of the allowable building area of the lot, would result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation, and would conflict with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. The structural lot coverage proposed was 15.65%. • , • .• ,• • ••-•.:. .• •• 4;•-• - • 1 •11111.00 ••••• • ••• • Na. • ••:.• 1.1 -No -ree,e6.,97g, 111 • AIL =LODE PAD COVIZACZ 11.1 .Ze No 47_3 Fla .r/eV 4' 11 I / 1•I Atiorgagf Lane Aft:A irpc hfoomir-- Ci1 o/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AGENDA ITEM � ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 MEETING DATE 5/11/92 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE* MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 92-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. OWNERS: MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER ADDRESS: 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 473 on April 28, 1992 and will have reviewed the subject Resolution on May 9, 1992. 2. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,150 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 33 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 3. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 4. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 22.9 % (35% permitted). 6. The building pad coverage proposed is 17.7%. 7. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act which requires that tennis courts be reviewed, the Planning Commission found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopted a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 92-17. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. 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. William R. Hoover with respect to real property located at 1 Morgan Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 170-1- MS) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool cabana and requesting a Conditional Use Permit `to 'construct a tennis court. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for the Conditional Use Permits on February 18, 1992, March 17, 1992, and April 28, 1992 and at field trip visits on February 29, 1992 and March 28, 1992.. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and hereby adopt the Negative Declaration which accompanied this item, which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a proposed detached 742 square foot pool cabana approximately 22 feet west of the existing residence as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.G of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a detached pool cabana provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 5. The. Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be located on the westerly edge of the building pad which is not visually prominent and cannot be viewed from Morgan Lane. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with similar recreational uses in the community. The area proposed for the cabana will be located in an area of the property where such use will not impact surrounding properties and will be in back of and screened by the existing single family residence. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 2 Section 7. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 7,150 square foot tennis court as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.E of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court under certain conditions. Section 8. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar recreational uses in the community, the area proposed for the court will be located in an area of' the property where such use will be least intrusive to surrounding properties. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.62 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. C. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the tennis court will not impact the view or the privacy of neighbors and will not be visible from neighboring properties. The tennis court will have a baffle screen which will be obscured by landscaping. The new court will be 35 feet from the north property line and adjacent to a paddle tennis court on neighboring property at 3 Morgan Lane. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a 7,150 square foot tennis court in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto for a tennis court in Zoning Case No. 473 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Conditional Use Permit for a pool cabana, and the Conditional Use Permit for a 7,150 square foot tennis court as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, and approved in Sections 6 and 9, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 3 C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the cabana and court are located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15.0% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 22.9%. G. The pool cabana shall have no kitchen or cooking facilities. H. All grading required for the construction of the court shall be balanced, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed one thousand seven hundred (1,700) cubic yards. I. The area graded for the court shall not exceed 7,150 square feet in size. J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. K. A drainage system shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the court and landscaping, which drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. L. Existing shrubs and trees along the north side of the tennis court shall be retained and maintained during construction of the court. M. A sound baffle screen, along with landscape screening, shall be provided for the tennis court and shall be maintained so as not to interfere with the viewscape of the owners of surrounding property, nor shall it interfere with the views of users of community easements. N. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 4 A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to he posted prior to issuance of a grading, and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. O. Court lighting shall not be permitted. P. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than two: and a half (2.5) feet in height. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. Q. Noise from persons using the tennis court shall be kept to a minimum so as not to unreasonably disturb the quiet enjoyment of' persons on surrounding proper ties. R. Tennis lessons profferred by a tennis professional shall be confined to the immediate family only. S. Separate building permits shall be obtained for the pool cabana and the tennis court. T. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to. the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. U. The _ project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. V. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. W. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. X. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval, except for Condition B, must be complied with prior to the issuance of' a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 PAGE 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF MAY. 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING.A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT IN ZONING CASE NO. 473. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on May 2, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DEPUTY CITY CLERK • HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST Cuy al R0f/L INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APRIL 28, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 473 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ JANUARY 25, 1992 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants revised their request and need for a Variance by reconfiguring the tennis court out of the side yard setback. 2. The Planning Commission viewed a staking of the proposed tennis court on March 28, 1992 that had been reconfigured out of the side yard setback. 3. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,150 square foot tennis court west of the existing residence and garage and 35 feet from the northwest property line. Approximately 32 feet of 2.5 foot high retaining walls will be required at the northern corner of the tennis court. 4. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure approximately 22 feet to the west of the residence. 5. The existing residence and attached garage were completed in April, 1989. 6. On July 8, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-17), the Planning Commission approved a request for a 2,450 square foot paddle tennis court at 3 Morgan Lane by Mr. Gerry Ginsberg. ZONING CASE NO. 473 PAGE 2 7. On November 14, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-28), the Planning Commission denied a request for a 7,200 square foot tennis court at 2 Morgan Lane by Mr. Michael Gray. The findings for denial stated that the proposed tennis court, together with existing structures on the triangular -shaped lot, would cover nearly all of the allowable building area of the lot, would result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation, and would conflict with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. 8. Grading for the entire project site will require 1,700 cubic yards of cut and 1,700 cubic yards of fill soil. (The prior request required approximately 779 cubic yards of balanced cut and fill). 9. The structural lot coverage proposed 15.0% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 22.9% (35% permitted). 10. The building pad coverage proposed is 17.7%. 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Negative Declaration, the proposed plans, and take public testimony. esign and onstruction development March 20,1992 Lola Unger Principal Planner No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mrs. Ungar MAR 23 1992 CITY OF ROUJNG H1US BY 24921 Cypress Street Lomita, California 90717 213 • 326-9675 FAX • 541-7848 I Mrs. Hoover would like to respectfully request our application for a variance on our tennis court be removed. We still wish to obtain the conditional use permits for the tennis court, in its new orientation, and for the cabana. If you require additional information or other data please feel free to contact our representative Jim Bartz . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sara Hoover FOR: C'ity NEGATIVE DECLARATION a C+ CASE- WO. 4173 (Project) INCORPORATED JANUARY 2A, 1957 NO 2 PORTUOUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF 90274 1213) 377.1521 FAX (213) 377-72Se Application has been filed vith the City of d0 /44-'9 4( for v approval of the project known as ??,---,,,;(/ �e 7� 41 73 to be located at / /`///r"q�' La- , �o l^9 /4. //s- CA ga27¢ and to be implemented by A//A, /7 cu / 4 / . cYl/�dmH /� / �l Asa Liucaf �iilu� 64 The project is //briefly described as: �f /_ ICP,fate.? !h. a 444a; 771F1/Nrt 7� �ttc erec-�c,4<,_ v de7 > tu4.c,, ce,144 � c� Ja.z! S.r7da�ck, `f u.w/Irim- a Ok�4 .a0 444. v��,.,,,. o` „ri.a peseJ use:' c'e:*-fiG.,L 1 ,P e..e ize 7, d .).-.ID a p ?cs�e Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Eryyironme�,ta1 Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Kef pp '` i�� , the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will josa have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A copy of the Initial Study, documenting reasons to support the finding, is attached. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are: A period of at least 21 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 flf th prq spe ice ios s °� tile in offices o! 1 `' Date: '43/9z- By: o'd % Gd n 4-uJ�aW yG (Title) APPENDIS ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND CHECKLIST FORM (Initial Study) Date Submitted: 2//3/9Z No. /lo. i‘13 J GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name •and address of developer or project sponsor: lctr. 8 Prs ‘re ///'..,le, 4-Infer / /1/014. /ec y / C'f>' ya e 74 2. Address of project: / /t/°ty• Assessor's Block and Lot Number / 7,la-c/-43387/ 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to�bee coontacted concerning this project: i �itn� Z �fy2 / ",/ s4 Lo3.:4..±,-iCA 967/7 (3/0) 326 - ge7S- 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by 1/ 1- d!4-c4 a Cewil city, regional, state and federal agencies: Crxlercn(A/ 16.4 4 ,d 7 w Clot. il J ' 5. Existing zoning district: /e%�•s z 6. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): %r, .,ti �,e , d C - a' JL'' PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7. Site size: %/41 /27 �G'-ref 8. Square footage: /d 2, r4'2 Sy-*u,IV-ef . 6/ 9. Number of floors of construction: / • 10. Amount of off-street parking provided: 17�' Hai 11. (Attach plans.) f/ ' 12. Proposed scheduling: 13. Associated projects: 4'/Q 14. Anticipated incremental development: 41/4 15. If residential, indicate the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size `/ expected: . 4q/e 1?rw �,c-r `4 - /bf!f 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: Aalt 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N✓2,4 -2- 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: v fewe> 2u-chr:.t,4ilo,G,,.fa 5=f2e 614.4 S&7 , 47,4 e/ ? : u.-es a I'l4i�ic.;, c �4ni.> (tin t �! Pew ( ce Ca),d4.z aC ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 20. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 21. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use, and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all 'yes' and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 22. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? A( b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? st c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? �{ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? -3- • 1 f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? YES MAYBE NO 23. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — �s b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? N( 24. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? �C e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts • or excavations? -4- ti s h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as floodin; or tidal waves? j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 25. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and of plants? b. A reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 26. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 27. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? -5- YES MAYBE NO X as - of b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 28. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 29. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alter- ation of the present or planned land use of an area? 30. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 31. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or up- set conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emer- gency evacuation plan? 32. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,'or growth rate of the human population of an area? 33. Sousing. Will the proposal af- fect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 34. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? -6- YES MAYPE NO ?C d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 35. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 36. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use -of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 37. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? -7- YES MAYBE NO — 2% •nl+w y - t .1A' 111 38. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to poten- tial health hazards? 39. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthet- ically offensive site open to public view? 40. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 41. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthet- ic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural •values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 42. 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 commun- ity, reduce the number or restrict -8- YES MAYBE NO X YES MAYBE NO the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environ- mental goals? (a short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defin- itive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate re- sources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the ef- fect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause sub- stantial adverse effect on human be- ings, either directly or indirectly? CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date For -9- (Signature) �uau' eArdiplicantLi ilerc- 1 1 wCity °Moiling _Airs INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND CHECKLIST FORA (213) 377 1521 (INITIAL STUDY) Ax: (213) 377 72aa CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DATE: JANUARY 13, 1992 APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 473 SITE LOCATION: 1 MORGAN LANE (LOT 170-1-MS) ZONING & SIZE: RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER REPRESENTATIVE: MR. JIM BARTZ REQUEST A request for a Variance to permit the encroachmnt of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Environmental Information and Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Yes" or "Maybe" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The City of Rolling Hills is a residential community with single family dwellings on estate -size lots. The project site has an existing single family dwelling and garage. The project site has an undulating topography representative of a rolling hillside classification. 22. Earth a-d. Although approval of the subject 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. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, all development is 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. During construction, the project may result in disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices requiring balanced cut and fill and should not cause a significant environmental impact. e-g. During construction, there may be removal of natural vegetative cover for the preparation of the tennis court and the pool cabana. At the completion of the project, there will be replacement of landscaping with native drought - resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the ZONING CASE NO. 473 INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 community. Related erosion impacts will be less than significant. 27. Noise a. During construction, there may be increases of existing noise levels. 34. Transportation/Circulation a. During construction, there may be substantial additional vehicular movement. HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST City opeoffinl • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 MARCH 17, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 473 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ JANUARY 25, 1992 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed a staking of the proposed tennis court, a silhouette of the cabana and the front pilasters and walkway. 2. The applicant revised plans to reduce the front entranceway pilasters from 30" to 24" round, and from 4' to 2' high and deleted the curvilinear wall. The tennis court and cabana remain as proposed. 3. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court 20 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. 4. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct 7,200 square foot tennis court west of the existing garage and 15 feet from the northwest property line. An 18 inch high retaining wall will be required at the northwest side of the tennis court. 5. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure 10 feet to the west of the residence. 6. The existing residence and attached garage were completed in April, 1989. 7. On July 8, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-17), the Planning Commission approved a request for a 2,450 square foot paddle tennis court at 3 Morgan Lane by Mr. Gerry Ginsberg. Page 2 8. On November 14, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-28), the Planning Commission denied a request for a 7,200 square foot tennis court at 2 Morgan Lane by Mr. Michael Gray. The findings for denial stated that the proposed tennis court, together with existing structures on the triangular -shaped lot, would cover nearly all of the allowable building area of the lot, would result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation, and would conflict with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance objectives of maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. 9. Grading for the entire project site will require 778.74 cubic yards of cut and 718.61 cubic yards of fill soil allowing for loss of cubic yards in compaction. The tennis court will require 325 cubic yards of cut and 245 cubic yards of fill soil, also allowing for loss of cubic yards in compaction. 10. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15.67% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 23.46% (35% permitted). 11. The building pad coverage proposed is 23.6%. (Previous calculations had erroneously included the tennis court). 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Negative Declaration, the proposed plans, and take public testimony. • City 0/ leo/ILI HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1992 TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST PLANNING COMMISSION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 473 1 MORGAN LANE (170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ JANUARY 25, 1992 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. DISCUSSION In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of a tennis court 20 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. 2. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct 7,200 square foot tennis court west of the existing garage and 15 feet from the northwest property line. An 18 inch high retaining wall will be required at the northwest side of the tennis court. 3. The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit for a detached 742 square foot pool cabana structure 10 feet to the west of the residence. 4. Building permits show that construction began in December, 1986 and was completed in April, 1989 for the existing 4,299 square foot house and attached 1,248 square foot garage. 5. On July 8, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-17), the Planning Commission approved a request for a 2,485 square foot paddle tennis court at 3 Morgan Lane by Mr. Gerry Ginsberg. 6. On November 14, 1989 (Resolution No. 89-28), the Planning Commission denied a request for a 7,200 square foot tennis court at 2 Morgan Lane by Mr. Michael Gray. The findings for denial stated that the proposed tennis court, together with existing structures on the triangular -shaped lot, would cover nearly all of the allowable building area of the lot, would result in a densely developed parcel, leaving little room for open space areas and natural vegetation, and would conflict with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 3 objectives of' maintaining the rural and natural features of the community. Page 2 7. Grading for the entire project site will require 778.74 cubic yards of cut and 718.61 cubic yards of fill soil allowing for loss of cubic yards in compaction. The tennis court will require 325 cubic yards of cut and 245 cubic yards of fill soil, also allowing for loss of cubic yards in compaction. 8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 15.67% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 23.46% (35% permitted). 9. The building pad coverage proposed is 45.44%. 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 Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Negative Declaration, the proposed plans, and take public testimony. FOR: City o/ Ro• P[iny _iIL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Od//N6 C,4 S-t 4,0. -'73 (Project) INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1 S21 FAX (213) 377.7288 Application has been tiled with the City of 4o&4,.,q ' "(s for v approval of the project known as z?n- co Ca4e . 4173 to be located at / /4(0tQ La``e . l ^9 l7- CA 9007 i //�� / /' / and to be /i/m'plemented by !!///,' QL!4{ 1fr5. Cf/Z'/�dM1 /� 7Yr? / A Abu in , /I 1,41k, The project is briefly described as: /eS/. to1Q / eucGG 77j QP�'/37tG/ AGtG''zerx-ceti4-4,getroQ-74e.u.GGricaf .u-`4 f Sr�e yard S ac% �2/u.4if(A, a- 6elck4CA4 GZe /�'.9. of r r'a ,mesa / D /�p�Z Ca c . a , Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Eryyai;onme#�ta1 Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of 1C y F;k,%� , the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will n=I have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A copy of the Initial Study, documenting reasons to support the finding, is attached. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects are: A period of at least 21 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 coy f th pr,oqject specifications is on file in th off s of tt,c /�efL 2 �1uy �rec.1 .J ,�4L1s G.9fez 7 Date: c�.379z By: te74d67. AZura./' / ��- (Title ) • APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND CHECKLIST FORM (Initial Study) Date Submitted: '//3�qZ No. 2,u-ct9 C-ae-' A�o• 73 ,J GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name .and address ofdeveloperor project sponsor: //��!// / /l(o tu, laud �v-&e;,y / C o z74 2. Address of project: / A9uu {�nL ��-�• Assessor's Block and Lot Number /. 7,7dc./•�3387/ 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerningthis project: Ake.. V,.CN. 04 Z Z,/2 / ozfao ri� Le-0,4±,. /C/i 907/7 (3/0) 326-967.S- 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: (tx .ea0 t, A,CaAvid and 7-u+ a� Cn ; Los ,4 SL 441 V64.4.4147 J9 0 yr #44,KiZ, / 5. Existing zoning district: 6. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): KR q to le. L GntI o; a/ ad-4- /- i a. `r-Gu,,riis Crx,V- a- law, awei, 710 u 5-f PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7. Site size: //� /Z7 8. Square footage: /i 2, J`4'2 �z 9. Number of floors of construction: / • 10. Amount of off-street parking provided: 1746 'iP ce 11. (Attach plans.) 12. Proposed scheduling: A� 13. Associated projects: iV�Q 14. Anticipated incremental development: 41/4 15. If residential, indicate the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: 5y/Z u Atp- q - /Us.e;'" v 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: /0 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: A7/4 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: 44 -2- • 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the • application is required: /.;444A:0Ceu.rt Quch�x�cco,c�a ��c axed se-Tmock, au c4 re 6 a-cfi S a 1 �Lurua 6fzo fi eu4d, Paa/ C zc.c«r 2V�COzc G%�c-x ai ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 20. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 21. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use, and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 22. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? YES MAYBE NO 2e e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 16( -3- f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? a� 23. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 24. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? 25-- d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? • -4- • • h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?' i. Exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 25. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and of plants? b. A reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 26. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 27. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? -5- YES MAYBE NO X 2 • • b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 28. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 29. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alter- ation of the present or planned land use of an area? 30. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 31. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or up- set conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emer- gency evacuation plan? 32. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,'or growth rate of the human population of an area? 33. Housing. Will the proposal af- fect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 34. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? YES MAYBE NO c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? k -6- • • d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 35. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 36. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use -of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 37. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? -7- YES MAYBE NO 2< 2< 2< „x..•.. ,. . Mi.W9-23A* • • 38. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure 'of people to poten- tial health hazards? 39. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthet- ically offensive site open to public view? 40. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity ofexisting recreational opportunities? 41. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthet- ic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural •values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 42. 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 commun- ity, reduce the number or restrict -8- YES MAYBE NO X YES MAYBE NO the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impor- tant examples of the major -periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environ- mental goals? (a short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, defin- itive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A Project may impact on two or more separate re- sources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the ef- fect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause sub- stantial adverse effect on human be- ings, either directly or indirectly? CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date (/ 3 /0 For -9- ,P,t Z174/-(Signature) (Aicant)J tug • ‘‘tlit Mix 1, C1iy afieo fP.�,.S ihl'h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND CHECKLIST FOR; (213) 3) 377-71 (INITIAL STUDY) AX: (21337 7288 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DATE: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: JANUARY 13, 1992 ZONING CASE NO. 473 1 MORGAN LANE (LOT 170-1-MS) RAS-2, 2.62 ACRES MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM R. HOOVER MR. JIM BARTZ REQUEST A request for a Variance to permit the encroachmnt of a tennis court into the side yard setback, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed tennis court, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed pool cabana. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Environmental Information and Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Yes" or "Maybe" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The City of Rolling Hills is a residential community with single family dwellings on estate -size lots. The project site has an existing single family dwelling and garage. The project site has an undulating topography representative of a rolling hillside classification. 22. Earth a-d. Although approval of the subject 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. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, all development is 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. During construction, the project may result in disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices requiring balanced cut and fill and should not cause a significant environmental impact. e-g. During construction, there may be removal of natural vegetative cover for the preparation of the tennis court and the pool cabana. At the completion of the project, there will be replacement of landscaping with native drought - resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the ZONING CASE NO. 473 INITIAL STUDY PAGE 2 community. Related erosion impacts will be less than significant. 27. Noise a. During construction, there may be increases of existing noise levels. 34. Transportation/Circulation a. During construction, there may be substantial additional vehicular movement.