Loading...
640B, Variance for encroachment in , ApplicationPROPERTY OWNER: OWNERS ..ADDRESS:. TELEPHONE NO: PROPERTY ADDRESS: REOUE8T FOR BEARING 'OR SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY OF ROLLING RILLS DR. & MRS. JAMFS'S(:HARFFFNRFRr.FA 940 2ND STREET HERMOSA BEACH,CA 90254 #3 APPALOOSA LANE. ROLLING HILLS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT N0 106-D. TRACT 27006. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ASSESSORS BOOR NO 7569 PAGE 10 PARCEL 4 AGENT'S NAME: DAVID C. BREIHOLZ AGENT'S ADDRESS: 1852 LOMITA BLVD., LOMITA, CA 90717 TELEPHONE NO: (3.10) 530-3050 ****************************************,******,************************ NATURE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Describe in detail the nature of the proposed project, including what aspects of the project require a Site Plan Review: PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING UNIMPROVED LOT. PROPOSED GRADING WORK FOR THE STABILITY OF THE LOT AND DEVELOPING THE BUILDING SITE. THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A SITE PLAN REVIEW; SINCE IT IS A VACANT LOT ON WHICH A NEW HOME, MOTOR COURT, POOL AND STABLE AREA ARE PROPOSED. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA, Site plan review criteria upon which the Planning Commission must make an affirmative finding. Describe in detail the project's conformance with the criteria below: A. Is the project compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses? Explain how it compares to the sizes, setbacks and other characteristics of neighboring houses. THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE 7nNINr, nPnINANrE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS OF AVERAGE SIZE FOR THE AREA (UPPER BLACKWATER E APPALOOSA LANE) AND THE LOT IS SMALLER THAN THE EXISTING DEVELOPED LOTS. Site WITH CITY ORDINANCES AND THE ARCHITECTURE WILL BE Plan Review COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENCES. Application -9- B. How does the project preserve and integrate into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) ? Explain how the project preserves and integrates existing natural features. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY RECTANGULAR AND SLOPES FROM SOUTH TO NORTH ACROSS THE SHORT DIRECTION AND SLOPES FROM WEST TO EAST TOWARDS APPALOOSA LANE. A DRAINAGE COURSE EXISTS ALONG THE NORTH RUNNING FROM GLORY TRAIL TO APPALOOSA LANE. THERE ARE NO MATURE TREES ON THE SITE. THE OWNER HAS PLANTED OAKS NEAR THE SOUTH EASEMENT. C. Now does the site development plan follow natural contours of the site to minimize grading? Extensive grading and recontouring of existing terrain to maximize buildable area shall not be approved. Graded slopes shall be rounded and contoured so as to blend with existing terrain. Grading shall not modify existing drainage redirect drainage flow unless into an existing drainage course. Explain the nature and extent of the impact of grading and proposed minimization on lots. THE PROPOSED PAD IS SLOPED 8% TO MORE CLOSELY FIT THE EXISTING SLOPE, THUS MINIMIZING THE GRADING. THE PROPOSED GRADING DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFY THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS. THE BUILDING PAD IS BEING LOCATED IN THE MOST LOGICAL LOCATION FOR THIS LOT. D. To what extent does the site development plan preserve surrounding native vegetation and supplement it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community? Landscaping should provide a buffer and transition zone between private and public areas. Explain how the project preserves native vegetation, integrates landscaping and creates buffers. THE SURROUNDING NATIVE VEGETATION IS SCRUB BRUSH, MUSTARD AND SAGE. THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WILL NOT CHANGE THIS EXCEPT AT THE GRADED PAD AND TO PROVIDE A TREE -LINED DRIVEWAY AND SHADE TREES NEAR THE HOUSE AND STABLE, AND A PROPOSED FRUIT TREE ORCHARD ALONG THE NORTH END OF THE PAD. Site Plan Review Application -10- E. How does the site development plan preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage? Lot coverage requirements shall be regarded as maximums and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted should depend upon the existing buildable area of the lot. Explain how the lot coverage proposed compares with lot coverage square footage and percentages on neighboring lots. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PRESERVES THE NATURAL UNDEVELOPED CONDITION OF THE LOT BY GRADING ONLY THOSE PORTIONS OF THE LOT NECESSARY FOR A MINIMUM SIZE PAD,'A SMALL STABLE AREA AND ACCESS TO THE PAD AND STABLE. PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE IS HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING LARGER LOTS. PFRrENTA(F OF PAD stsiOeeonHaF.Ihestdevlpmetpin haNG rmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences? Setbacks shall be regarded as minimums and more restrictive setbacks shall be imposed where necessary to assure proportionality and openness. Explain how the proposed project setbacks compare with the existing setbacks of neighboring properties. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS HARMONIOUS IN SCALE WITH THE SITE SINCE THE GRADUAL SLOPING RESIDENTIAL PAD MINIMIZES THE VISUAL EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE IN RELATION TO THE SLOPED LOT. THE HOUSE'S PI AN IS VFRY NFARI Y PRO- PORTIONAL TO THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY. THE SIDE YARDS ARF RFI ATIVFI Y EQUAL. REAR AND FRONT YARDS ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE. G. Is the site development plan sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles? Explain how the number and types of vehicles relate to the driveway location, design, trip data, landscaping and other on -site parking or storage areas. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION PROVIDES GOOD SITE DISTANCE FROM & TO APPALOOSA LANE. 2) ON -SITE PARKING IS SUFFICIENT. NO ON -STREET PARKING WILL BE REQUIRED. 3) DRIVEWAY IS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. WITHIN GRADING . LIMITATIONS, TO SERVE THE SITE. Site Plan Review Application -11- • H. Does the site development plan conform with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act? Explain how the project impacts the environment, e.g. significant impact, proposed mitigation measures. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMS WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROJECT DOES NOT IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT EXCEPT FOR NECESSARY GRADING TO ESTABLISH THE PAD AND STABILIZE THE SLOPE. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above, and in attached exhibits, presents the data and information required for the site plan review criteria evaluation to the best of my ability; and, that the facts, statements and other information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: l © /24 %q2, Site Plan Review Application -12- C;)A471,0 Wtgemile4 For: DR. JAMES SCHARFFENBERGER Applicant OWNER'S DECLARATION I (We) declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at LOMITA ,California, this day of ()c L ri , 1992, C-07Anoniiicrekemftvi 940 2ND STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 (address) NOTE: The Owner's Declaration can only be used if this application is signed in California. If this application is signed outside of California, the applicant should acknowledge before a Notary Public of the State where the signature is fixed, or before mother officer of that State authorized by its laws to take acknowledgements, that he (it) owns the property described herein, and that the information accompanying this application is true to the best of his (its) knowledge and belief. Attach appropriate acknowledgment here. DR. & MRS. JAMES APPLICANT: SC H ARFFENBERGER DATE FILED REPRESENTATIVE: DAVID C. BREIHOLZ FEE: COMPANY NAME: DAVID C. BREIHOLZ & CO. RECEIPT NO: COMPANY ADDRESS: 1852 LOMITA BLVD. BY: LOMITA. CA 90717 ZONING CASE NO: Wf00 COMPANY PHONE No. (3101 530-3050 TENTATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT ADDRESS: #3 APPALOOSA LANE LOT 106-D Site Plan Review Application -13- OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Property development in Rolling Hills is governed by ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills ("City") and by private deed restrictions enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA"). The land development permit process of the City and the RHCA are completely independent and separate. Both must be satisfied and approval given by both the City and the RHCA to develop property in Rolling Hills. An approval by either the City or the RHCA does not mean or imply or ensure approval by the other. The suggested sequence of property development is to obtain City approvals first. I, (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that the above statement has been fully read and its admonition is completely understood. Executed at this a co -riP\ LOMITA day of ( r )L By: (rJ` By: 940 2ND STREET Address . HERMOSA BEACH. CA 90254 city Site Plan Review Application -14- , California , 19L -TR) CITY OF ROLLING RILLS ZONING CASE CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST XFFIDAVI! STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, RIVER MONTIJO ss , declare under penalty of perjury that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County within the area described and for a distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as: LOT 106-D, TRACT 27006, CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ASSESSOR BOOK #7569, PAGE #10, PARCEL #4 Executed at LOMITA this 2.5RID Conditional Use Permit Variance Site Plan Review' Zone Change Site Plan Review Application -15- , California, clay of ocTOBER , 19 92 . ir\,,WANUa/ SIGNAET E Address q LLO r� City/State Signatures c-P(e{c NOV 10 1993 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS_ RECORDING REQUESTED\AND CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 93-1'08411 RECORDE )/FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS EiE CORDER'S OFFICE MAIL" TL 'GANGELESCOUNTYRecoer.'s Use CALIFORNIA MII11. PAST 8 A.M. SEP 15.1993 ��--- FEE Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road . Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The' Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 460B I (We) the undersigned state: SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I am (We are) the owner(s) of the follows: X X real property described 5 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) Rolling Hills, CA This property is°the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions said ZONING CASE NO. 460B SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X X as in I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print .�->, . 1.a P�'_ )L.,ten O� Owner Name c� � Signature V)'Y�P� o`�V` W., U Print Owner Name Signature Address / SO, ° City/State g6Zsy must be acknowledged by a notary public. wee.-r State of County of SS. RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 7 MIN. PAST 3 Q m SEP 15 1993 On this the day of 19_, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature subscribed to the oxecuted it. See Exhibit °A" attached hereto and made a part hereof r CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5193 to be the person(') whose name( - subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that they -executed Is the same in 4--r e-oth- authorized capacity(-Fss4, and that by3/hcr/thci-r signature($,on the instrument the person(s)., or the entity upon behalf of which the personftacted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY • OPTIONAL SECTION r TITLE OR TYPE OF DOC61MENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED a 1 State of CALi,"OA/0IA— County of `i D5" A1/l'6C.6.s' rt' On / 95 ATE } 93-1788411 before me, /e/X ' .�C£ee/CSe0 NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared 7.114.6 AASC f�n/q/b. "�4/ / 06A NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) Lypersonally known to me - OF Elpro e-a arktiasiG of- tisfaetory-evidenee z MARIE A. RICCARDI COMM. #970088 Nolary Public -California 1.OS ANC-ELIS COUNTY I'd{v Gomm. expires JUL 26, i 996 MARIE A. RICCARDI COMM. #970088 Notary Public -California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My comm. expires JUL 26.1996 THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE TACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED A -IGHT: - ® OPTIONAL SECTION C ACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER Thoug statute does not require the Notary to fill in th data below, doing so may prove invaluable o persons relying on the document. ❑ INDIVI UAL ❑ CORPO ATE OFFICER(S) ITLE(S) ElPARTNER(S) LIMITED GENERAL ElATTORNEY-IN-FAT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSER TOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) 1 DATE OF DOCUMENT OVF _b _ '���..o`°^+'ay`*s11 ': . '.,a a•.aaaaaa4..� . . ._w..r.a...a aas,��aaaaaaaa a..".»�:`,'.•.'�..'�' :'"V`'ea'4: ) ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 by law, it could prevent fraud nt reattachment of this fo Though the data re' uested here is not require • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460B. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. James Scharffenberger with respect to real property located at 5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 106-D-RH) requesting: (1) A Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard to construct a stable and corral, and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on December 17, 1991 and January 21, 1992, and at a field trip visit•on January 11, 1992. Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-10 in Zoning Case No. 460 on February 1, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on February 24, 1992. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to address the two issues of: (1) The necessity to provide a title report for 3 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) which shows that there is an easement for roadway purposes across property known as 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH) and across Lot 246-MS, and (2) The approval by the Traffic Commission of the proposed accessway to the subject site. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1992, April 28, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, and July 21, 1992 while awaiting the title report. Under Section 65957 of the, Government Code the applicant requested a 90 day extension of time` - on August 17, 1992 and the Planning Commission conducted a duly. noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 18,,,, 1992, September 15, 1992, and October 20, 1992. Section 4. Following the resolution of these matters, the'' Commission approved Resolution No. 92-27 in Zoning Case No. 460A on November 21, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 23, 1992 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on January 11, 1993. On that date, the applicant withdrew the proposed plans and requested review of new plans. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to review the new proposal and the large area of grading. 93-1788411 3 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 2 Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on February 16, 1993, March 16, 1993, April 27, 1993, May 18, 1993, June 15, 1993, and July 20, 1993, and at field trip visits on April 17, 1993 and July 15, 1993. Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 7. Section 17.38.050(A) through (G) permits approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Sections 17.16.200(A)(3) is required because this section states that corrals or pens may not be located in the front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach up to 28 feet into the 122 foot irregular front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral. With respect to this request, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional,or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do. not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable. corral, .and retaining walls in the rear yard. The proper and logical location for the stable and corral is below the proposed building pad because of the topographical nature of the lot. The proposed building pad for the residence will be located atthe southwest portion of the lot where the ground is mostly level. The northwest side yard slopes down to the canyon which precludes the creation of a flat area for a stable and corral in the rear yard. The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place available on this property for this use. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the General Plan encourages and the Zoning ordinance requires the delineation of stables and corrals on properties in the City of Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located in the rear yard. RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 3 C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties because they will be nestled into the hillside. Also, the building pad for the stable is located along a long driveway so that it will not be visible from the street. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a 450 square foot•stable and a 550 square foot corral in the front yard as shown on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings, may. be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size •of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more than 25% in any 36-month period. Section 10. W.ith respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 87,152 square feet. The proposed residence (5,615 sq.ft.), garage (875 sq.ft.), swimming pool (308 sq.ft.), service yard (72 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 7,320 square feet which constitutes 8.4% of the lot which is within-, the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot' coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 17,210 square.` feet which equals 19.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum• overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a•, relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located away from the road .so as to reduce the visual impact of the, development. The pad is similar in sizeto several neighboring. developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because a minimum amount of grading is 93-1788411 • • GO 1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 4 proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible; existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because grading will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. D. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because grading will conform with the existing land contours which are varied. E. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the north side of this lot. F. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, with the conditions attached to this', approval, supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. 'G. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 35%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access near the western property line and scenic vistas across the northerly portions of the property. H. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. I. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize Appaloosa Lane for access. Also, the proposed;dri;veway is near the • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 5 end of a cul-de-sac street which will therefore create little interference with traffic. J. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 460B for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 12. Section 12. The Variance to permit the construction of a stable, corral, and retaining walls that will encroach into the front yard approved in Section 8, and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 11 are subject to the following conditions: { A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A). B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review 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 Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. CO4010 D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as tj otherwise provided in these conditions. M Cn E. Grading shall not exceed 1,590 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,590 cubic yards of fill soil. F. Graded slopes shall be contoured to 2:1, 2-1/2:1, and 3:1 slopes. G. All retaining walls incorporated into'the project shall not be,greater than 5.feet in height at any one point. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 6 H. The driveway access apron shall be twenty-four (24) feet wide. I. The driveway access apron shall be roughened to assist equestrian crossing. J. To minimize the visibility of buildings on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation and other vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. Special emphasis shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan to obscure the house from riders on the Glory Trail at the western property line by way of large native plants or plants that are compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. K. 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. L. 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. M. 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. N. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review and must conform to the development plan approved with this application. 93--1788411 RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 7 0. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 35%. P. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. All conditions. of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1993. EVY•AANKI S, C ING CHAIR ATTEST: ray,,- ./ %) MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 93-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE, PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION.NO. 92-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460B. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 17, 1993, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Raine and Acting Chairman Hankins NOES: Commissioner Frost ABSENT: Commissioner Lay and Chairman Roberts ABSTAIN: None 93-1.788411 0.- `071., _i} . R. •..[J` ".,/ DEPUTY C? TY CLERK.- • • City o/ Rollin Silieto INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 CHRONOLOGICAL TIME LINE FOR ZONING CASE NOS. 460, 460A AND 460B 5 APPALOOSA LANE (LOT 106-D-RH) ZC NO. 460 7/8/91 Application submitted for Site Plan Review for new residence. 8/5/91 Status of Application - Incomplete letter sent to applicant re: access, soils report, and setbacks. 10/7/91 Letter received from Sidney Croft regarding his opinion that access exists. 11/5/91 Status of Application - Incomplete letter sent to applicant with many more requirements unfulfilled. 11/25/91 Application submitted for Variance for stable and corral in front yard. 12/17/91 First public hearing. 2/1/92 Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 92-10 with paragraph requiring the applicant to obtain and record roadway easement for the subject property. 2/10/92 City Council remanded the case back to the Planning Commission with regard to the paragraph in the resolution requiring proof of roadway access and Traffic Commission approval of the driveway access. ZC NO. 460A 3/17/92 Readvertised public hearing and received applicant request for continuance. 4/28/92 Applicant request for continuance. 5/26/92 Applicant request for continuance. 6/16/92 Applicant request for continuance. 8/18/92 Applicant requested a 90-day continuance. 9/15/92 Continued Printed on Recycled Paper. ZC NO. 460, 460A & 460B PAGE 2 10/20/92 Assistant City Attorney Ennis advised Commission that the access issue had been resolved and that any action would apply only to the original site plan. Planning Commission approved ZC No. 460A deleting required condition pertaining to an access easement. 10/28/92 11/17/92 11/21/92 11/23/92 12/14/93 1/11/93 1/11/93 2/16/93 3/13/93 4/27/93 Modification of design application submitted for ZC No. 460B. Advertised ZC No. 460B for public hearing and continued. Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 92-27 in ZC No. 460A. City Council took jurisdiction of ZC No. 460A because of concerns about grading. 5/6/93 LMU Advertised public hearing for ZC No. 460A before City Council. Field trip by City Council for ZC No. 460A. During public hearing at regular City Council meeting, applicant withdrew application for ZC No. 460A and notified Council that a new design had been submitted to the Planning Commission. The City Council then remanded the case back to the Planning Commission. Readvertised ZC No. 460B public hearing before Planning Commission. Planning Commission field trip visit. Public hearing before Planning Commission. Discussion centered around comparison of ZC 460A and 460B in terms of structure sizes, building pad sizes and amount of grading and continued. 4 • • ,go DATE 6-7-93 ZONING CASE NO. 4606 ADDRESS #5 APPALOOSA LAND APPLICANT DR JAMES SCHARFFENBERGER CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE BUILDING AREAS EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL NET LOT AREA 87,152 sq.ft. 87,152 sa.ft. 87,152 sq.ft. BUILDING PAD(S) 0 sq.ft. 20,620 sa.ft. 20,620 sq.ft. RESIDENCE 0 sa.ft. 5,615 sa.ft. 5,615 sa.ft. GARAGE 0 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. SWIMMING POOL/SPA 0 sq.ft. 308 sq.ft. 308 sa.ft. STABLE 0 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT ( ) 0 sq.ft. n sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. SERVICE YARD 0 sq.ft. 7? sq.ft. 72 sq.ft. OTHER n sq.ft. n sq.ft. n sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES n sq.ft. 7020 sq.ft. 7,320 sq.ft. % STRUCTURAL COVERAGE n % R a % R a % % PAD COVERAGE 0 ...... % . _3.5.5 __ % 35.5 % DRIVEWAY n sa.ft. PAVED WALKS 0 & PATIO AREAS sa.ft. POOL DECKING TOTAL FLATWORK % TOTAL FLAZWORK COVERAGE 8,343 sq.ft. 8,343 sa.ft. 1,207 1,207 sq.ft. sq.ft. n sa.ft. 340 sq.ft. 340 sq.ft. n sq.ft. 9,890 sq.ft. 9,890 sq.ft. n % 11 3 % 11.3 % TOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLAZWORK COVERAGE 0 sq.ft. 17,210 sq.ft. 17.210 sq.ft. % TOTAL COVERAGE 0 % 19.8 % 19.8 % • s DATE, 6-7-93 ZONING CASE NO. ADDRESS ADDRESc #5 APPALOOSA LANE APPLICANTDR JAMES SCHARFFENBERGER CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAn Ca.'RM! PAD NO. 1 BUILDABLE PAD AREA 19,620 sq.ft. RESIDENCE 5,615 so.ft. GARAGE 875 sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) 0 sq.ft. POOL 308 sq.ft. ' RECREATION COURT OTHIIR-SERVICE YARD TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 0 72 6,870 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq. ft. 35 PAD NO. 2 BUILDABLE PAD AREA 1,000 Ga.ft RESIDENCE 0 sq.ft. GARAGE 0 sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) 450 sq.ft. POOL 0 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT 0 sq.ft. OMER 0 sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 450 sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45 % -8- • `1vf 3 DATE 5/11/93 ZONING CASE NO. 460B ADDRESS #5 Appaloosa Lane APPLICANT Scharffenberger BUILDING AREAS NET LOT AREA BUILDING PAD(S) RESIDENCE GARAGE SWIMMING POOL/SPA STABLE RECREATION CnURT t SERVICE YARD OTHER TOTAL STRUCTURES % STRUCTURAL COVERAGE % PAD COVERAGE DRIVEWAY PAVED WALKS & PATIO AREAS POOL DECKING TOTAL FLATWORK % TOTAL FLATWORK COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGE % TOTAL COVERAGE CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL 87,152 sa.ft. 87,152sa.ft. 87,152 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 24,220 sa.ft. 24,220 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 5,615 sq.ft. 5,615 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft..., 875 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 364 sq.ft. 364 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft.. 450 sq.ft.. 450 sq.ft.. 0, sq.ft... 0 sq.ft.. 0sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 72 sq.ft. 72 sq.ft,,., 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft... 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 7,376 sq.ft. 7;376 sq.ft.. 0 % 8.5 % 8.5 % 0 % 30.4 % 30.4 0 sq.ft. 8.343 sq.ft. 8,343 sq.ft. 0 sa.ft. _1,207 sq.ft. 1,207 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 10,085 sq.ft. 10,085 sq.ft. 0 % 11.6 % 11.6 % 0 sq.ft. 17,461 sq.ft. 17,461 sq.ft... 0 % 20 % 20 % -7- DATE 5/11/93 ZONING CASE NO. 460E ADDRESS #5 Appaloosa Lane APPLICANT SCHARFFENBERGER CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE • PAD NO. 1 BUILDABLE PAD AREA ...-__2 220 sq.ft. RESIDENCE 5,615 sa.ft. GARAGE' 875 sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) 0 sq.ft. POOL 364 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT r 0 sq.ft. OTHER SERVICE YARD 72 sq.ft.. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1.. 6.926 sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 29.8 PAD NO. 2 BUILDABLE PAD AREA _-,__- ,1,000 _-_.-___sq . ft . RESIDENCE .-_-.-_ _._0 sq . f t . GARAGE 0sa.ft. STABLE (BARN) 450 sq.ft. POOL 0 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT 1 0 sq.ft. OTHER 0 sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 450 sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45 -8- s • C'4 oll2 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 GRADING QUANTITIES FOR APPROVED NEW RESIDENCES (FROM APRIL, 1991 TO PRESENT) ZC ADDRESS/OWNER RESIDENCE+GARAGE GRADING QUANTITIES 402 4 Buggy Whip Drive (MacKay) 8,240 sq.ft. 4,000 cu.yds. cut 4,000 cu.yds.fill 432A 6 Ringbit Rd. W. (E.S.Dev.) 3,559 sq.ft. No grading 434 24 Outrider Road (Wallace) 5,758 sq.ft. 4,075 cu.yds. cut 4,075 cu.yds .fill 438 16 Crest West (Shaikh) 442 22 Portuguese Bend Road (Turpanjian) 9,100 sq.ft. 2,875 cu.yds. cut 2,875 cu.yds. fill 7,898 sq.ft. 3,300 cu.yds. cut 3,300 cu.yds. fill 454 3 Middleridge Lane S.(Lynn) 9,170 sq.ft. 2,900 cu.yds. cut 2,900 cu.yds .fill 458 0 Chestnut Lane (Colyear) 2,024 sq.ft. 4,000 cu.yds. cut 4,000 cu.yds.fill 460A 3 Appaloosa Lane 5,150 sq.ft. 1,592 cu.yds. cut (Scharffenberger) 1,592 cu.yds. fill 470 17 Southfield Dr. (Marrone) 7,165 sq.ft. 2,950 cu.yds. cut 2,950 cu.yds.fill 476 10 Upper Blackwater (Smith) 4,216 sq.ft. 2,180 cu.yds. cut 2,180 cu.yds. fill 484 1 Lower Blackwater (Sheng) 8,545 sq.ft. 3,800 cu.yds. cut 3,800 cu.yds.fill 5/18/93 LMU *a Printed on Recycled Paper. • ANALYSIS OF LAST 10 SITE PLAN REVIEWS/GRADING APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (SFR) ZC #484 - Owner: Sheng, #1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road - Replace SFR, Grading - 3800/3800 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #476 - Owner: Smith, 10 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road - New SFR Grading - 2180/2180 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #420 - Owner: Marrone, 17 Southfield Drive - New SFR, Grading - 2950/2950 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #458 - Owner: Colyear, 0 Chestnut Lane - New SFR, Grading - 4000/4000 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #472 - Owner: Straub, 7 Packsaddle Road - Replace SFR, Grading - 180/180 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #402 - Owner: Mackay, 4 Buggy Whip Drive - New SFR, Grading - 4000/4000 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #403 - Owner: Calhoun, 2864 P.V.D.N. - New SFR, Grading - 800/800 cubic yards cut/fill (?) ZC #459 - Owner: Ruth, 5 Outrider Road - Replace SFR, Grading - No grading ZC #442 - Owner: Turpanjian 22 Portuguese Bend Road, New SFR, Grading - 3300/3300 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #435 - Owner: Boyd, 5 Williamsburg Lane North, New SFR, Grading - 657/657 cubic yards cut/fill ZC #460B - Owner: Scharffenberger, 5 Appaloosa Lane, New SFR Grading 2590/2590 cubic yards cut/fill IpA P r,L W DATE /12/93 BUILDING AREAS NET LOT AREA BUILDING PAD(S) RESIDENCE GARAGE SWIMMING POOL/SPA STABLE RECREATION COURT SERVICE YARD OTHER ZONING CASE NO. 460E ADDRESS #5 APPALOOSA LANE APPLICANT DR_ JAMFS sr.HARFFFNBERGER CALCULATION OF LOT COVERAGE EXISTING 87,152 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. PROPOSED 87,152 24,498 5,615 875 364 450 0 0 55 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. TOTAL 87,152 24,498 5,615 875 364 450 sq.ft. sq.ft. sa.ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 55 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. TOTAL. STRUCTURES 0 sq.ft. 7,359 sq.ft. 7,359 sq.ft. % STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 0 % 8.4 % 8.4 % % PAD COVERAGE 0 % 30 % 30 % DRIVEWAY 0 sq.ft. PAVED WALKS & PATIO AREAS 0 sc.ft. POOL DECKING 0 sq.ft. TOTAL FLATWORK 0 sq.ft. % TOTAL FLATWORK COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCIURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGE % TOTAL COVERAGE 10,243 sq.ft. 1,207 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 11,985 sq.ft. 10,243 sq.ft. 1,207 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 11,985 sq.ft. 0 % 13.8% 13.8% 0 sq.ft. 0 % 19,3.44 sq.ft. 22.2% 19,344sq.ft. 22.2% DATE 4/12/93 ZONING CASE NO.460 B ADDRESS #5 APPALOOSA LANE APPLICANT DR. JAMES SCHAR-rhNW.KIER CALCULATION OF BUILDING PAD (=ERA' PAD NO. 1 BUILDABLE PAD AREA 23,498 sq.ft. RESIDENCE' 5,615 sq.ft. GARAGE 875 sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) 0 sq.ft. POOL 364 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT 0 sq.ft. 55 OTHER sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 6,909 % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 29.4 ER sq.ft. PAD NO. 2 BUILDABLE PAD AREA RESIDENCE sq.ft. GARAGE sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) sq.ft. POOL sq.ft. RECREATION COURT ( ) 0 sq.ft. OTHER 1,000 0 0 450 0 0 sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 450 sq.ft. % BUILDING. PAD COVERAGE 45 -8- x • DATE 10/23/92 ZONING CASE NO. ADDRESS #3 Appaloosa Lane APPLICANT Dr. James Scharffenberger CALCULATION .OF__LOT COVo2AGE BUILDING AREAS PREVIOUSLY -APPROVED PROPOSED TOTAL NET LOT AREA 87,152 sq.ft. 87.152 sq.ft. 87,152 sq.ft. BUILDING PAD(S) 20,579 sq.ft. 23.938 sa.ft. 23,G18 sa.ft. RESIDENCE 4.550 sa.ft. 5.615 sq.ft. 5.615 sq.ft. GARAGE 600 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. SWIMMING POOL/SPA 450 sq.ft. 364 sa.ft. 364 sa.ft. STABLE (FUTURE) 450 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT ( ) 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. SERVICE YARD 0 sq.ft. 84 sq.ft. 84 sq.ft. OTFtER 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES % STRUCTURAL COVERAGE % PAD COVERAGE DRIVEWAY PAVED WALKS PATIO AREAS POOL DECKING TOTAL FLATWORK % TOTAL FLATWORK COVERAGE TOTAL STRUCTURAL & FLATWORK COVERAGE % TOTAL COVERAGE 6,050 6.9 29 sq.ft. 7,676.5 sa.ft. 933.5 sq.f`. 1,350 sa.ft. 7,388 sq.ft. 8.5 s% 31 '2. 10,243 sa.ft. 1,207 sa.ft. 7,388 sq.ft. 8.5 % 31 4. 10,243 sa.ft. 1,207 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 9,960 sq.ft. 11,985 sq.ft. 11.4 % 11,985 sq.ft. 13.8 % 13.8 % 16,010 sq.ft. 19,373 sq.ft. 18.3 % 22.2 % _•V _ 19,373 sq.ft. 22.2 % DATE 10/23/92 _ ZONING CASE NO. ADDRESS #3 Appaloosa Lane APPLICANT Dr. James Scharffenberger CALCULATION•OF BUILDING PAD COVERAGE PAD_ NO._1 BUILDABLE PAD AREA 22,938 sq.ft. RESIDENCE 5,615 sa.ft. GARAGE 875 sq.ft. STABLE (BARN) 0 sq.ft. POOL 364 sq.ft. RECREATION COURT ( ) 0 sq.ft. OTHER SERVICE YARD 84 sq.ft. TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 1 6,938 sq.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 30.2 % PAD NO. 2 BUILDABLE PAD AREA 1,000 _sq.ft. RESIDENCE 0 _--- sq.ft. GARAGE 0 sa.ft. STABLE (BARN) (FUTURE) 450 sg.ft. POOL 0 sg.ft. RECREATION COURT 0 .) sa.ft. • 101" TOTAL STRUCTURES ON PAD NO. 2 0 sa.ft. 450 sa.ft. % BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45 % -8- • • City o/ Roth„ JM INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To Be, Completed By Applicant) NO. 2 PORTUGUESE DENO ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377.7290 Date Filed November 21. 1991 Zoning Case No. 460 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant, address and telephone no. Dr. James Scharffenb rgpr 9/10 2nd St.. Hermosa Beach. CA 90254 (3101 379-708R 2. Legal Owner, address and telephone no. (if different from above)_ 3. Address of project 43 Appalnnca I ann Rn([inn Wills Assessor's Book, Page, Parcel No._aonk ii7cr,q Pag„ in. p.,"el 11 Lot No. i ng_n 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: Grading and Building Permits 5. Existing zoning district RAS-4 6. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): Single - Family Residence PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7. Site size. 2.4+ Acre 8. Net lot 'area . 87,.152 SF 9. Total square footage of structures. 7,388 swimming pool, service yard, -and future 450 SF stable.) 10: Basement square footage. 1,530 SF SF (includes residence, garage 11. Total combined flatwork and structural lot coverage. 22°6 12. Will any exterior walls be removed or relocated? Which walls? No 13. Will any interior walls be removed or relocated? Which walls? No 14. Will the entire building structure require a new roof? 15. Will the existing roof remain intact, with less than 25% added? No 16. Will cut and fill be balanced? Yes Amount cut 4.060 yd3 Amount fill 4,060 vd 17. Attach plans. 18. Proposed scheduling. Owner would like to build as soon as the approval process is complete. 19. If residential, include the unit size, approximate sale price and household size expected. 7,145 S.F. Single family resi. (includes 1530 sf basmt) Sale price will be• consistent w/ surroundir)g neighborhood. Family of 3 will live in house. 20. If commercial, .indicate the type estimated employment per shift and loading facilities. N/A 21. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shifts, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 22. If tNh/e project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Variance required for stable area in front yard. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No • 23. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. ▪ 24. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. ▪ 25. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. X 26. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. • 27. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in vicinity. • . . • .X 28. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing draining patterns. 29. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 30. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. The natural grade exceeds 10% 31. Use or disposal of potentiallyhazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. X 32. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). _ 33. Substantially increased fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 34. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35. 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. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. The site is currently vacant. Accordina to aeotechnical reports. this moderately,: sloped lot can be safely araded and developed. Native plant and animal species are present on site. 36. 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 (one -family, guest house, office use, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. The site is surrounded by residential uses and/or vaunt residential prnpertic e Plant life and animals are typical native species. No special cultural, historical or scenic aspects are known at this time. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information 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. Um12� l o(Z6/q Z c o l aqq L nature of Le! Ow� Date Si,�(turepplicant Date