The URL can be used to link to this page

653, Construct a guest house with e, Correspondence• £I'L1f/ 0/ Rolling t/ S INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com July 15, 2003 Mr. Dan Hayes Verizon Co. 2819 West 182 Street Redondo Beach, CA 90278 SUBJECT: UTILITY POLE AT 38 AND 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA Dear Mr. Hayes: It has come to our attention that Verizon erected a new pole at 38 Eastfield Drive, (Bauer), for the purpose of servicing a telephone line for 40 Eastfield Drive, (Tonsich). Please be advised that it is against the City policy to allow new poles to be installed, without the City's permission and unless conditions of the property, such as existence of canyons or streams, preclude one from placing utility lines underground. We understand that the request to relocate Mr. Tonsich's telephone line was initiated by a private individual, Mr. Bauer, because Mr. Tonsich's line crossed Mr. Bauer's driveway. We would like to inform you that Mr. Tonsich, 40 Eastfield Drive, was recently granted City approvals to make improvements to his property. One of the conditions of approval requires that prior to finaling the construction, all of the utility lines serving 40 Eastfield Drive be placed underground. Once the telephone line extending from the new pole to 40 Eastfield Drive is placed underground, we will require that Verizon, at its sole expense, remove the recently installed pole. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me at (310) 377-1521. Thank you for your cooperation. Sinc rely lanta Schwartz lanning Director cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager Mr. Nicholas Tonsich, 40 Eastfield Drive Mr. William Bauer, 38 Eastfield Drive c9� C1i O/ afLt�Lllr..;r::.,.':.i: Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: Please find enclosed signed, FINAL Development Plan approved by the City Council on May 27, 2003, which was submitted by Jerry Rodin on June 5, 2003. Please note that the City Council approved a six-foot encroachment into the side yard setback with the detached garage, rather than the 10-foot encroachment approved by the. Planning Commission. The approval is valid for one year, with the opportunity to request a one-year extension. The request for extension must be made in writing prior to the expiration of the approval. The approval becomes null and void if work has not commenced within the specified period of time. Please make sure that you forward the AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM and the Resolution, which I mailed to you on May 28, 2003 to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. The Resolution contains several conditions, which have to be met prior to issuance of building permits, as well as conditions that have to be met at different stages in the development process. Your first requirement, prior to obtaining building permits, is to submit to this office a formal document showing the reduction in the northerly easement by the RHCA, and a landscaping plan together with cost estimate and a bond' or CD. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ' /Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director Enclosure: DEVELOPMENT PLAN May 28, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • tis /?offtn INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This is to inform you that the City Council at their May 27, 2003 meeting adopted Resolution No. 935 approving your proposed development plan. Please note that the City Council approved a six-foot encroachment into the side yard setback with the detached garage, rather than the 10-foot encroachment, which the Planning Commission approved. Please submit 2 sets of revised site plans indicating this change. The approval is valid for one year, with the opportunity to request a one-year extension. The request must be made in writing prior to the expiration of the approval. The approval becomes null and void if work has not commenced within the specified period of time. Enclosed is a copy of RESOLUTION NO, 935, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. If you need to expedite this process, you may want to walk the recordation process through, rather than send the form and resolution in. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only after the Affidavit of Acceptance and the Resolution are recorded and received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. As you go through the development process, please be aware of the conditions of the Resolution, as there are conditions that have to be met at different stages of the process. (i)Printed r7n Fier.yr;lnr: Pm,•:i At • Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Since ly, Tanta Schwartz lanning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION No. 935 cc: Jerry Rodin, Architect • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. T Recorders Use Only AFFIDAVIT O F ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 653 SITE PLAN REVIEW X X VARIANCE X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X X LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 40 Eastfield Drive (LOT 91-EF) Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 653 SITE PLAN REVIEW X X VARIANCE X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X X LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary [public. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF l • • RESOLUTION NO. 935. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A GUESTHOUSE, A DETACHED GARAGE AND A FUTURE STABLE; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT OF THE GARAGE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOCATING THE GUESTHOUSE IN THE FRONT AREA OF A THROUGH LOT; AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE GUESTHOUSE AND THE DETACHED GARAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 653 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF. (TONSICH). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review request to construct a 666 square foot addition, a 596 square foot detached garage, an 800 square foot guesthouse and a future stable; a variance request for encroachment of the garage into the side yard setback; a variance request to construct the guesthouse in the front area of a through lot; and requests for conditional use permits to construct the guesthouse and the detached garage. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the applications on August 20, and October 15, 2002, and at a field trip visit on September 11, 2002. At the November 19, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the subject project by Resolution No. 2002-15, by a vote of 4-1. Section 3. At the November 25, 2002 City Council meeting the Council took Jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 653. Section 4. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on January 13, 2003, February 10, 2003, February 24, 2003, March 10, 2003, May 12, 2003 and at a site visit on February 6, 2003. Staff accompanied Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer to visit the project site on March 5, 2003, and Councilmember Black on March 18, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 5. During the public hearing process and at the field trip, members of the City Council expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed detached garage to the adjacent residence and to the easement line. Councilmembers suggested that the proposed garage be moved, to lessen the impact of the encroachment into the side yard setback. At the May 12, 2003 public hearing the applicant agreed to locate the proposed detached garage fourteen (14) feet from the westerly side yard setback, allowing for a six (6) foot encroachment into the 20-foot required side yard setback. Section 6. The property is currently developed with a 2,355 square foot residence, a 400 square foot detached garage, 310 square foot storage structure, a 442 square foot swimming pool, and a 51 square foot service yard/pool equipment shed. The service yard/pool equipment shed is proposed to be relocated. The detached garage and storage structure currently encroach into the side yard setback and are proposed to be demolished. Section 7. Records show that the existing house with an attached garage was constructed in 1950. There are no records on file for the detached garage or the storage building. These structures, are therefore, not permitted. There are also no records indicating that the attached garage, constructed with the house in 1950, was legally converted into living space. An inspection by a Building Official shall be required to ascertain that the conversion of the attached garage to living area was completed to the standards set forth in the applicable Building Code. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing Resolution No. 935 - t • • buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting additions, construction of the guesthouse, the detached garage and a future stable at an existing single-family residence, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements with the Variance approved in Section 14 of this Resolution. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. The size of the existing and proposed structures will be 5,360 square feet, which constitutes 13.5% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,783 square feet which equals 29.7% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pads, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed residential addition will follow the pattern and style of the original residence. The proposed guesthouse will be built into the existing slope to minimize its impact and eliminate the need to create a new building pad. The proposed 596 square foot detached garage will replace two illegal 710 square feet structures. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan will supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. The proposed additions were designed to minimize lot coverage. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The proposed addition, detached garage and the guesthouse will not be visible from Eastfield Drive or from Outrider Road. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. H. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 653 for proposed structures, including the addition, detached garage, guest house and.a future stable, subject to the conditions contained in Section 19 of this Resolution. Section 11. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guesthouse under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse. Such guesthouse will be located in the front yard area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 935 -2- • • A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guesthouse would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guesthouse would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guesthouse will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guesthouse will be nestled behind existing trees on the lower pad to promote pad integration and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guesthouse will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. In order to assure that views are preserved, the Eucalyptus trees located in the vicinity of the proposed guesthouse will be removed and alternate landscaping installed. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the guesthouse will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and the structure already exists. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the guesthouse is the maximum permitted under the Municipal Code and the guesthouse does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because an adequate area is set -aside for the construction of a future stable structure and adjacent corral. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot guesthouse, subject to the conditions contained in Section 19 of this Resolution. Section 13. Section 17.16.210(A)(4) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a detached garage under certain conditions, provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting to construct a 596 square foot detached garage. Such garage will be located in the same general area as the existing illegal structures, which will be demolished, and will encroach ten feet into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a detached garage would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community. The area proposed for the detached garage is the same general area on the property where a similar use already exists and will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a detached garage will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed garage will be smaller in size than the existing structures at that location and will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the detached garage will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 596 square foot size of the detached garage is permitted under the Municipal Code, with the Variance as approved in Section 16 of this Resolution. Resolution No. 935 -3- E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because it will not be visible from the road or neighboring properties. A future stable is proposed on the site. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 596 square foot detached garage, subject to the conditions contained in Section 19 of this Resolution. Section 15. Section 17.16.120 requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting to construct a detached garage, which will encroach ten feet into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance request is to replace an unauthorized structure, which already encroaches into the side yard setback, with a new legal detached garage in the same general location. The steep topography of the lot together with the fact that the lot is a through lot creates a difficulty in constructing the garage elsewhere on the property. 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 to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the garage elsewhere on the property. The lot is large for the zone in which it is located, however due to the double frontage of the lot and the fact that a driveway, which serves the property to the east traverses the entire width of this lot, the net lot area for development purposes is drastically reduced. The proposed detached garage will minimize the need to grade, as the existing access to the proposed garage will be utilized. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed garage will follow along the line of the existing encroachment of the unauthorized structures, which will be demolished and will mitigate the necessity for any additional grading. Section 16. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 653 to permit the detached garage to encroach six (6) feet into the westerly side yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 19 of this Resolution. Section 17. Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Section 17.12.250 requires that where a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, as defined in the Zoning Code. Therefore, the required setback is measured from the roadway easement and not from the property line. In addition, no construction is allowed in the front yard, other than the primary residence. The applicant is requesting to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, to be located in the rear of the primary residence, but on that portion of the lot that abuts a street, as this lot is a through lot, which means it fronts on two streets. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is a through lot. In any other circumstance the location of the proposed guesthouse would be allowed without a variance. The guesthouse will be located behind existing shrubbery close to an existing hillside slope and away from the street. The proposed location of the guesthouse is desired so as to preserve the safety and integrity of the slopes and leave nearly all of the existing open space of the lower pad of the property unaffected. 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 to the property in question. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a Resolution No. 935 -4- • • manner similar Co development patterns on surrounding properties. The location of the building pads and the development pattern of the remaining structures on site, especially the driveways dictate that the proposed guesthouse be located in the rear of the existing residence, but in the front yard area due to the double frontage of the lot. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed development will not be visible to neighbors and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Section 18. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Variance for Zoning Case No. 653 to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guesthouse in the front yard area of a through lot subject to the conditions specified in Section 19 of this Resolution. Section 19 The Site Plan Review approval regarding the additions, and construction of the guesthouse and a detached garage approved in Section 10 of this Resolution, the Conditional Use Permit regarding the construction of a guesthouse approved in Section 12, the Conditional Use Permit regarding the construction of the detached garage approved in Section 14, the Variance regarding the side yard encroachment of the detached garage approved in Section 16 and the Variance regarding the location of the guesthouse approved in Section 18 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A), 17.42.070(A), and 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a.hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. A revised site plan showing the 6-foot side yard setback encroachment with the garage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the revised site plan, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,360 square feet or 13.5% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations. F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,783 square feet or 29.7% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. G. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,866 square feet or 40.0% in conformance with disturbed area limitations. H. Residential building pad coverage on the 10,069 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 4,110 square feet or 40.8%; coverage on the existing 2,307 square foot guesthouse/future stable pad shall not exceed 54.2%i [. The guesthouse shall not exceed 800 square feet of floor area, and shall comply with the requirements as specified in Section 17.16.210A(5) of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not be limited to the following: 1. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the guesthouse. 2. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within fifty feet of the proposed guesthouse. 3. Renting of the guesthouse is prohibited. 4. Occupancy of the guesthouse shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family, the immediate family members of the occupants of the Resolution No. 935 -5- • main residence or the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. J. Grading, shall not exceed 111 cubic yards of cut soil and 111 cubic yards of fill soil. Grading shall be balanced on site and shall preserve the existing flora to the greatest extent possible. K. The proposed retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point, averaging no more than 2.5 feet. L. The existing unauthorized detached structures shall be demolished. The new detached garage shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the additions to the house and/or the construction of the guesthouse. No final inspection for occupancy of the additions and/or the guesthouse shall be granted unless and until the detached garage is completed and ready for a final inspection. M. Prior to conducting a final inspection for the additions, detached garage and/or the guesthouse, an inspection of that part of the house, which was converted from a garage into living area, shall be conducted by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department. The applicant shall request such an inspection and pay all applicable fees. If any deficiencies are found, they shall be corrected prior to securing a final inspection from the Building and Safety Department for any of the other improvements. N. In the event that the approvals contained in this Resolution expire, as stipulated in Section 19, subparagraph "A" of this Resolution, the City will immediately initiate code enforcement proceedings to assure that a legal two -car garage is provided on the property, and that the converted garage is inspected and that it complies with all applicable building codes. O. In the event that only some of the improvements approved by this Resolution are constructed, the unauthorized garage and storage structure shall be demolished and the applicant shall construct the approved detached garage, apply to the Planning Commission for modified garage or apply to legalize the existing unauthorized structure. A final inspection for the improvements will not be granted, unless there exists a legal garage on the property, which is to be completed concurrently with any other improvements. An inspection of the converted living area, as required in subparagraph "M" above, shall be required prior to securing final inspection for any of the improvements or for the new garage. P. Two sets of landscaping plans for the areas surrounding the guesthouse and for all other graded areas, as well as the garage area shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning staff. The landscape plan shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Q. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the guesthouse and the detached garage from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the structures. The Eucalyptus trees located in the vicinity of the proposed guesthouse shall be removed, so as to prevent future view obstruction. R. Two copies of landscaping plans and a cost estimate for material, labor and irrigation to implement the landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 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 permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. After the two- year period, upon the request of the applicant, the retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager or his designee determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. S. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. Resolution No. 935 -6- • • T. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. U. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. V. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. W. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. X. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste and storm water pollution prevention. AA. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. AB. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D. AC. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground. AD. The City's and the Community Association's requirements related to outdoor lighting, roofing material and construction and all other requirements shall be complied with. AE. 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 HillsPlanning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. AF. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variances, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. AG. All conditions, when applicable, of the Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AH., Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would constitute additional grading or structural development, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF MAY, 2003. (j() FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR Resolution No. 935 -7- ATTEST: CRAIG NFALIS, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution 935 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A GUESTHOUSE, A DETACHED GARAGE AND A FUTURE STABLE; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT OF THE GARAGE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOCATING THE GUESTHOUSE IN THE FRONT AREA OF A THROUGH LOT; AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE GUESTHOUSE AND THE DETACHED GARAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 653 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on May.27, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: aonunmli1membirii,Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro-Tem Heinsheimer NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. CW1 CITY CL.EIZK Resolution No. 935 -8- • City o/ ie0i'i,.g • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com May 25, 2004 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 653 Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter shall serve as official notification that a one-year time extension was APPROVED by the City Council at their regular meeting on May 24, 2004, for the subject case. I have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 952, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council. Note that this approval will expire on MAY 27, 2005, unless aradina or construction commences prior to that date. The City's Code does not provide for any further extensions. Please also be advised that prior to obtaining a grading or building permit, you must satisfy several of the conditions of the original Resolution, Resolution No. 935, including providing City staff with two sets of a landscaping plan for their review, and when approved with a 115% security deposit for material and labor; proof of recordation of the reduced easements and proof that you obtained a demolition permit for the detached structures. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director CC: Jerry Rodin, Architect Printed on Recycled (''.ipr,r RESOLUTION NO. 952 • • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 935 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A GUESTHOUSE, A DETACHED GARAGE AND A FUTURE STABLE; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT OF THE GARAGE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOCATING THE GUESTHOUSE IN THE FRONT AREA OF A THROUGH LOT; AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE GUESTHOUSE AND THE DETACHED GARAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 653 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF. (TONSICH). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 9I-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances for the construction of an addition to a single family residence, a guesthouse, a detached garage and a future stable. Section 2. The City Council considered this item at a meeting May 24, 2004, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to complete the soils and geology reports. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 19 of Resolution No. 935, dated May 27, 2003, to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permits approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as defined in Sections 17.38.070A, 17.42.070A and 17.46.080A" Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 935 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DA REY MAYOR PRO ATTEST: eLytt .24 MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 1AY 2004. Resolution No. 952 -1- - STATE OF CALIFU:'tNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) § } I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 952 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 935 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, A GUESTHOUSE, A DETACHED GARAGE AND A FUTURE STABLE; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT OF THE GARAGE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK; GRANTING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LOCATING THE GUESTHOUSE IN THE FRONT AREA OF A THROUGH LOT; AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE GUESTHOUSE AND THE DETACHED GARAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 653 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF. (TONSICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 24, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Hill, Lay and Mayor Pro Tem Pernell. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 952 GLASER, TONSICH & BRAJEVICH LLP ATTORNEYS May 13, 2004 Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portugese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 RE: Zoning Case No. 653 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA By Dear Yolanta: MAY CITY OF RO3 'M HILLS Please consider this letter my request for a one-year extension to the approvals granted in the above -referenced zoning case, specifically Resolution 935. We have received approval from the Architectural Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association but have been delayed in completing the soils report so that the structural engineering can be finished. The soils engineering was being performed by Western Laboratories. I have retained a new soils engineer so that we may complete the construction drawings for submission to the County. . I have enclosed a $200.00 application fee for the extension. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information regarding this request. NGT:kpg Enclosure BEVERLY HILLS Very truly yours, GLASER, TONSICH RAJEVICH LLP PORT OF Los ANGELES SAN FRANCISCO 222 W. 6TH ST., SUITE 1000 SAN PEDRO, CA 90731 TELEPHONE: 310.241.1200 FAcsIMILE: 310.241.1212 City o/ ie0ii, JUL May 13, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on May 12, 2003 directed staff to prepare a Resolution, with conditions, to approve your request in Zoning Case No. 653. The City Council will consider this Resolution at their Tuesday. Mav 27. 2003 meeting, (note the change in the day for the meeting). The City Council condition will include that the detached garage be moved four (4) feet from the easement line, and not three feet as presented at the meeting. Please submit two sets of a revised site plan indicating this change. The resolution with findings and conditions of approval will be forwarded to you prior to the next Council meeting. The City Council decision shall become effective immediately upon approval of the Resolution. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Mr. Jerry Rodin, Architect I: ,� Ian Associates s 9 aca 45441e420. r C. Rodin, Architect;Al 29000 S. Western Avenue, Suite 408 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310) 832-3135 : Office (310) 832-0333 : Fax jcrodin @ sbcglobal.net: E-Mail FAX To: City Of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attn: Youlanta Schwartz, Principal Planner Fax: (310) 377-7288 Phone: (626) 377-1521 Re: Sound Insulation @ Garage Zoning Case No. 653 Tonsich Residence #40 Eastfield Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Youlanta, From: Jerry C. Rodin, Architect A.I.A. Pages: 8 Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 CC: Project file: Nick Tonsich, Owner (310) 241-1212 To assist and clarify the issue of Sound Reverberation from the detached garage, in the above noted project, the enclosed construction specifications will be applied to the development: 1. Wall STC Rating: 50 to 54 increased to 64 with the application noted in item 4 below. 2. Wall insulation: Rigid plastic foam or mineral fiber batts 3. Wall envelope: Exterior envelope: wood siding over 2 layers #15 building felt, over 5/8" exterior grade gypsum board, over visqueen sound/vapor barrier sheet, over 2" x 4" studs @ 16" o.c. Interior envelope: Owens Corning 3 '/2" sound insulation fiberglass batts between wall studs noted above, enclosed with horizontal resilient furring channels covered by 5/8", type "X" gypsum wall board. All edges and intersections of the wall board, exterior and interior will be mudded, taped, sanded and sealed. 4. As noted in the enclosed Gypsum Association Manuel (GA-201-85), pages: 10 & 11, 29, 30 & 31, this wall envelope will bring at least a STC Rating of 50 to 54. By adding the visqueen barrier we are increasing the rated higher. Estimations are at least 8 points more. This produces a wall rated at STC 58 to 62. This rating far exceeds any reasonable doubt, the effort by the owner is providing a Sound friendly structure to the property noted above. • • • April 30, 2003 5. Review the decibel levels included in this report to get an indication where this structure performs. By adding Owens Coming , 3'//" thick fiberglass batt insulation we receive an additional 12 decibel which directly relates to the STC rating. In a conversation (4-29-03), with the experts from Owens Corning it was noted the wall we are provid'ng is a minimum STC rating of 64. 6. Normal wall insulation values required by building and safety official are: Wall: R13 Floor: R19 Ceiling: R30. The application noted above incorporates these values and exceeds them. 7. Adding the Resilient Channels to the interior under the gypsum board isolates the vibration of the sound. The visqueen barrier encapsulates sound with -in the structure and prevents sound leakage. Taping the joints and intersection of the wall board further enforces this effort. Please review the enclosed Gypsum Association Specifications and details. We are applying these standards to the construction of the garage noted above. Respectfully submitted, Rodin Associates Jerry C. J odin, Architect, AIA • Page 2 • 30 ]' �"n ; 1 : F r��l'Ntt : Y�' - ".�:{ . h'Id�•1,4�'7;i�C'"dam;): I:.Y�'N' .#."i"'�;"'�;n'vvd]�;;.�dt�M �C e uo ar ti t � � .,•j"' cN J.• a •. CoYY.4t':lt.` 'rti�i� d'� , ••: a�� "Normal" Construction... Arrows show flanking paths Double Solid Metal Stud System System Elevation Under and Over Partitions Sound Isolation Construction "Select' Construction .. . Sealing of relief detail at perimeter of partition and around cut-outs to prevent sound leakage • '-Flexible Sealant' Flexible Sealant Sealant Sealant Metal Stud Double Solid Wood Stud Elevation • Plan Plan Through partitions -openings, Indicating sealing of openings outlet boxes through partitions 1 0l0 Plan Plan Through partitions -openings, Indicating sealing of openings outlet boxes through partitions Window Mullion J� Plan Double Solid Around -flanking partition. ends Plan "Pre -design" Construction... Simulating laboratory conditions 'h" perimete relief and sealant to seal against sound leaks LGaaket impedes atructuraat flanking through floor Elevation Typical Floor -Ceiling or Roof Detail Void between box and wallboard sealed Electrical box with extension ring Plan Outlet Box Detail Offset boxes minimum of one stud space and seal openings Plan Outlet Box Details Plan Typical partition -mullion intersection Intersection with exterior wall "lexible Sealant or Tape Flexible Sealant or Tape .�, :•.....,.....• ...•. .../ Flexible Sealant / or Taper Plan Flexible Sealant or Tape Metal Stud Plan Plan Around -flanking partition ends Intersection with interior wall Typical partition intersections Fig. 50 Sound isolating techniques improve the sound transmission class (STC) and noise reduction of gypsum walls. 1.1 1 0 .9 101$14cW,i,N hAiltahilLskAVA/'n:i, iYik � 1 ", 5�2• S�i1S'F:�M` I��y"yy''3:,s fact. 14. . MakKatiArIOL4>�Sl�',r� 4 .i VII SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION The first essential for airborne sound isolation of any assembly is to close off air leaks and flanking paths. Since noise can travel over, under, or around walls, through win- dows and doors adjacent to them, through air ducts and through floors and crawl spaces below, these flank- ing paths must be correctly treated to reduce the transmission of sound. Hairline cracks and small holes will increase the transmission of sound. This can have a detrimental effect on the overall acoustical perform- ance affecting the Sound Transmis- sion Class (STC), particularly in higher rated assemblies. Where a very high STC performance is need- ed, air conditioning, heating and ventilating ducts should not be in- cluded in the assembly. Failure to observe special construction and design details can destroy the effec- tiveness of the best assembly. Improved sound isolation is ob- tained by: • Separate framing of the two sides of the wall • Resilient channel mounting for the gypsum board • Including sound absorbing materials in the wall cavity • Using adhesively applied gypsum board of varying thicknesses in multi -layer construction • Caulking the perimeter of gyp- sum board partitions, openings in walls and ceilings, partition - mullion intersections, outlet box openings, etc. • Locating recessed wall fixtures in different stud cavities. (Medicine cabinets, electrical, telephone, television and intercom outlets, Most special constructions which are designed to improve sound, fire, moisture and thermal conditions de- pend on gypsum board assemblies built to specifications designed to accomplish the higher classifica- tions. These include proper framing techniques, fasteners, caulking, tap- ing and finishing of joints. In each case, the manufacturer's specific in- stallation recommendations should be closely followed for individual systems. Sound Isolation Construction plumbing, heating and air condi- tioning ducts should not be in- stalled back to back.) Any opening for such fixtures, pip- ing and electrical outlets should be carefully cut to proper size and caulked. The entire perimeter of sound insulating partitions should be caulked around gypsum board edges to make it airtight as detailed in Figure 50 on pg. 30. The caulking should be nonhardening, non - shrinking, nonbleeding, nonstain- ing, resilient sealant. Sound control sealing must be covered in the specifications, understood by the workmen of all related trades, su- pervised by the foreman, and in- spected carefully as construction progresses. Separated Partitions A staggered wood stud gypsum partition placed on separate plates will effectively decouple the system and provide an STC of 40-42. The addition of a sound absorbing ma- terial between the studs of one par- tition side can increase the STC as much as 8 points. For the attachment of kitchen cabinets, lavatories, ceramic tile, medicine cabinets and other fix- tures, a staggered stud wall or a metal stud chase wall rather than a resiliently mounted wall is recom- mended. The added weight and fastenings will acoustically "short circuit" a resiliently mounted wall. Resilient Mounting Resilient attachments, acting as "shock absorbers," reduce passage of sound through the wall or ceiling and increase the STC rating. Further STC increases can result from more complex construction methods such as separated partitions, multiple layers of gypsum board, and sound absorbing materials. Walls Resilient furring channels are at- tached with the nailing flange down and at right angles to the wood studs (Fig. 51c). Drive 11/4 in. Type W or S screws or 6d coated nails through the pre -punched holes in channel flange. With extremely hard lumber, 7/8 in. or 1 in. Type S screws may be used. Locate chan- nels 24 in. from the floor, within 6 in. of the ceiling line and no more than 24 in. o.c. Extend channels into all corners and fasten to corner fram- ing. Attach a resilient channel or 1/2 in. by 3 in. wide continuous gypsum board filler strips to the bottom plate at floor line. Channels should be spliced directly over studs by over- lapping ends and fastening both flanges to the support. Apply gypsum board horizontally with long dimension parallel to channels using 1 in. Type S screws spaced 12 in. o.c. along channels. Abutting edges of board should be centered over channel flange and securely fastened. Ceilings Resilient furring channels are at- tached at right angles to wood joists 29 r • in ceilings using 11/4 in. Type W or Type S screws or 6d coated nails 17/8 in. long. Locate channels within 6-in. of the wall -ceiling intersection and no more than 24 in. o.c. for joists spaced 24 in. o.c. maximum. Extend the channel into all corners and fasten to corner framing. Channels should be spliced directly under joists by nesting channel and screw- ing through both flanges to support. Apply the gypsum board with Type S screws spaced 12 in. o.c in the field and along abutting ends. Apply the long dimension of the board at right angles to the channels with end joints neatly fitted and stag- gered in alternate rows. Pieces of resilient channel should be used for back blocking butt joints not falling on furring members. Sound Isolating Materials • Mineral (including glass) fiber blankets and batts used in wood stud assemblies. • Semi -rigid mineral or glass fiber blankets for use with metal studs. • Mineral (including glass) fiber board. • Gypsum core sound insulating board used behind gypsum board applied adhesively or mechan- ically fastened. • Rigid plastic foam board used in exterior wall furring systems. • Lead or other special shielding material. Mineral wool or glass fiber in- sulating batts and blankets may be used in assembly cavities to absorb airborne sound within the cavity. They should be placed in the cavity and carefully fitted behind electrical outlets, around blocking and fixtures and around cutouts necessary for plumbing lines. Insulating batts and blankets may be faced with paper or other vapor barrier and may have flanges or be unfaced friction fitted. They are in- stalled by stapling or fitting to the in- side surfaces of studs. Avoid fasten- ing to the face of studs in order to assure good board -to -stud contact. In metal framed and in laminated all - gypsum board partitions, the blan- kets are attached to the back of the gypsum board. Batts and blankets without facings are installed by fric- tion fitting within the stud space. WITH INSULATION STC 35-39 WITHOUT INSULATION STC 30-34 Fig. 51a Adding sound absorbing insulation increases the STC four points in this wall. WITH INSULATION STC 50-54 Fig. 51c Resilient mounting of gypsum board surfaces raises STC about 12 points above that of wall in Fig. 51a. WITH INSULATION STC 45-49 WITHOUT INSULATION STC 40-44 Fig. 51 b Staggered studs provide partially separated framing for wall surfaces and in- crease STC about eight points from wall in Fig.51a. Addition of sound absorbing ma- terial can further raise STC to the 45-49 range. WITH INSULATION STC 50-54 Fig. 51d Two-ply construction increases the weight of the wall surfaces and helps provide higher sound resistance of wall with STC of 50-54 obtainable. 31 ,l 4 S7 t? i ii ]"1 +'%t1•�[F9 ylill� yif',I�s;�;'t yi ijl;.:..• • . • SOUND CONT,R IMPACT NOISE TEST To determine the Impact Insulation Classification (IIC) of a floor, a standard ISO impact machine with steel hammers raps on a test floor assembly installed above a special receiv- ing room. Microphones in the receiving room record the av- erage sound pressure level produced by the tapping machine at '/3 octave frequency bands between 100 and 3150 Hz or cps. These levels are then normalized to a standard room ab- sorption and plotted. The method used is described in ASTM Standard E 492-77. The IIC is determined by comparing the normalized im- pact sound pressure levels at the 16 test frequencies with a transparent overlay on which the IIC reference contour is drawn. The reference contour has a flat portion from 100 to 315 Hz; a middle line segment decreasing 5 dB irt,the inter- val 315 to 1000 Hz; followed by a high frequency line seg- ment decreasing 15 dB in the interval 1000 to 3150 Hz. The IIC reference contour is shifted vertically relative to the test curve until some of the measured impact levels are above those of the IIC contour and the following conditions are ful- filled: 1. The noise level at any test frequency cannot be greater than 8 dB above the reference contour. 2. The sum of the differences above the reference contour curve and the curve of the normalized impact noise levels cannot be greater than 32 dB. The IIC for the specimen is the difference between 110 and the value on the normalized impact noise level scale (i.e., ordinate scale) at 500 Hz of the lowest contour for which the above conditions are fulfilled. The IIC listings for floor -ceiling assemblies in this man- ual are for bare floors (no floor covering) and for the addi- tion of a carpet over a separate pad, which is identified as C&P. Although any carpet, with or without a pad, will improve the IIC, a heavy wool carpet over a good quality pad will make a significant improvement, as illustrated for FC 5300. The addition of a 44 oz. woven loop pile carpet over a 40 oz. hair felt pad increased the IIC from 38 to 63. The IIC (C&P) listings in this manual are for the carpet and pad described above for FC 5300 unless otherwise noted. The use of other types of carpets, both with and without pads, will result in increases in IIC, and in some instances may equal that achieved by use of the aforementioned carpet and pad. SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS TESTS ASTM Standard E 90-85 "Recommended Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions" outlines a procedure for mea- suring the sound transmission loss which is the difference between the sound energy (sound pressure level) in a source room and a receiving room when the two rooms are sepa- rated by the assembly being tested. ASTM Standard E 336-84, "Recommended Method for anti �,lt A ii5 nt"i,tl Measurement of Airborne Sound Insulation in Buildings," is the procedure to determine the noise reduction between two rooms under field conditions. The Sound Transmission Loss (STL) or Field Sound Transmission Loss (FSTL) is measured at octave test fre- quencies — 125, 160, 200, 250, 315, 400, 500, 630, 800, 1000, 1250, 1600, 2000, 2500, 3150, 4000 Hz (Hertz or cy- cles per second) — and the sound transmission loss curve is plotted. In reporting the effectiveness of an assembly in resisting transmission of airborne sound, whether it be wall, partition or floor -ceiling, a single number rating is developed. This rating is the Sound Transmission Class (STC) or Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC) and is obtained from a sound transmission loss curve. This manual uses a range of number ratings in order to make the comparison of various assemblies more significant. ASTM Standard E 413-73, "Determination of Sound Transmission Class," is the standard used to determine the STC. Using this method a standard curve is fitted over the sound transmission loss curve plotted on '/3 octave paper and the STC is read where the standard curve crosses the 500 Hz coordinate. The standard curve has a flat portion from 4000 Hz to 1250 Hz. It drops 5 dB between 1250 Hz and 400 Hz, then drops 15 dB between 400 Hz and 125 Hz. In fitting the stand- ard to the measured curve, the following requirements must be met: 1. The STL curve may dip only a maximum of 8 dB below the standard curve at any test frequency. 2. The sum of the differences at the test frequencies be- tween the standard curve and the point on the STL curve below it shall not be greater than 32. Some of the STC values in this manual, however, were de- rived according to slightly different standards prevailing be- fore 1970. For instance, ASTM E 90-61T, the previous sound test procedure, called for measurements at 1/2 octave frequencies, and the rules for fitting the standard curve were different. The STC for either method will generally fall in the same range. The smallest dimension of the assembly tested should be at least 7'10" and the recommended minimum volume for each of the sound source and receiving rooms is 2825 ft'. The assembly is constructed between these rooms which are so arranged that the only significant sound transmission is through the test specimen. The source room contains one or more sound sources, a diffusing system such as multiple stationary and/or rotating reflectors, and microphones located to adequately sample the sound field in the space. A single microphone on a rotat- ing boom may be optionally used. The receiving room is similarly equipped, except that the sound source(s) is used only to determine the reverberation time for correction pur- poses. The sound measurements in both rooms are made ac- 91 IO cording to procedures given in ASTM E 90. Research of recognized sound test authorities, indicates that the sound rating value on unsymmetrical walls is not af- fected by sound testing from either side. Therefore, the labo- ratory sound source side is not indicated for unsymmetrical assemblies in this manual. SOUND INSULATION A first essential for airborne sound insulation using any assembly is to close off air leaks and flanking paths by which noise can go around the assembly. Hairline cracks or small holes will increase the sound transmission at the higher fre- quencies. This can have a detrimental effect on the overall acoustical performance and the STC, particularly for higher rated assemblies. Failure to observe special construction and design precautions can destroy the effectiveness of the best planned sound control methods that can be built into an assembly. Assemblies should be airtight. Recessed wall fixtures such as medicine cabinets, or electrical, telephone, televi- sion and intercom outlets, which perforate the gypsum board surface, should not be located back-to-back or in the same stud cavity. In addition, any opening for such fixtures and for piping outlets should be carefully cut to proper size and caulked. The entire perimeter of a sound insulating as- sembly must be made airtight to prevent sound flanking. Use flexible sealant or an acoustical gasket to seal between the assembly and all dissimilar surfaces and between the assembly and similar surfaces where perimeter relief is re- quired. Taping gypsum board wall and wall -ceiling inter- sections provides an adequate air seal at these locations. ASTM Recommended Practice E 497 also provides guid- ance information for good sound control practice. Manu- facturers of the gypsum board used should be consulted for any special recommendations relating to their system. TEST METHOD: ASTM E 90 — 81 (1/3 Octave) DEFICIENCIES 7 5 4 4 3 2 70 60 4.1 •40 �J 6 - 30 • 20 10 4=29 0 100 190 2.0 44 6+0 1C30 16v0 25J0 40v0 • 125 Bt 200 315 500 100 1250 2000 3150 FREQUENCY, CPS (Ni) RESILIENT FURRING CHANNELS Pi :tea el;a:=�� STI, dB 100 125 21 160 29 200 33 250 36 315 ,0 400 500 41 630 51 100 54 1000 56 1250 60 1600 59 2000 56 2500 .17 3150 51 4000 55 S.T.C. 47 Minimum for all designs: Base metal thickness = .0209" min. A = 11/4" min. B = 7/16" min. C = 1/2" min. The sketch above shows 4 typical resilient channel configu- rations. Where resilient channels are included in assemblies in this Manual, the resilient channels are shown by a dashed line to distinguish them from standard furring channels. 11 • Sciiind Rating • .* AN Gley4 •.» i .aw•, <. 1 ; t• • 2 Sone Rating * Approximate ..**abA,,. %• ._.Tip;Speed Range (FPM) ", Extremely Quiet 1,-0 3.0 up to 2$00•� ' - 28 = 44 Quiet :.. "3.1 - .0., t ' 2500i - 3800 44 - 54 MaderateI,y •Quiet 6.1 .- 9.0' A• - 3000 - 4800- .. 54 - 60 verse " 9.1 - $1i�+1�tj( 4000 .-- 5800 60 -M ommerc;�a1 13.1 - 18.0 . • 5000 - 6000� . 65 ;- 70 Industrial MO and up 4 : 5700 and up 70 abd up • • `• 96%�0 9SZ V l•L `.5833NI0N3 IIHSI 3lbHISIO :A 3u0$ Z!Z a6ed !vvt.6:b 80-06-�►db • • City ol /eOfAfl, JUL April 29, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter is to inform you that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at the April 28, 2003 meeting voted to continue consideration of your case to the May 12, 2003 meeting. In order to place your request on the May 12, 2003 City Council agenda, please submit the plans and other pertinent information to the Planning Department no later than Monday, May 5, 2003. , In addition, please sign the enclosed letter of consent to continue this case, as required by the Government Code. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sinc-rely, 5t,0- Yanta Schwartz P anning Director cc: Jerry Rodin, Architect y: irritec1 cxt Rery7;It;ovn,,4, LETTER OF CONSENT TO EXTENSION OF TIME Government Code Section 65957 Date: April 29, 2003 Application: Zonino Case No. 653 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA Department of Planning City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Attn: Yolanta Schwartz Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65957, Mr. Nicholas Tonsich hereby requests and consents to a ninety (90) day extension to the time periods specified in Government Code Sections 65950, 65950.1 and 65952 for the City of Rolling Hills to take action on the above referenced application. The applicant also requests and consents to a continuance of this application from the April 28, 2003 City Council meeting, to the May 12, 2003 City Council meeting to allow the applicant to revise the application and plans. Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Priinted Name of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Printed Name of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Received by: (310) 544-6222 • .Rot�1n j iLLk community of el?aneIZo Jn- atos. (Vew No. 1 PORTIJGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ROLLING HILLS Memorandum dloaiation CALIFORNIA To: Craig Nealis, City Manager From: Peggy R. Minor, Association Manager Date: April 3, 2003 Re: Nick Tonsich — 40 Eastfield Drive (310) 544-6766 FAX Mr. Tonsich's Architect, Jerry Rodin, discussed the gargage proposed for the Tonsich property with the Architectural Committee on Tuesday evening. The Committee's minutes relating to the garage location are as follows: NICK TONSICH 40 Eastfield Drive Rodin 91 EF In order to preserve the integrity of RHCA Building Regulations, the Committee recommends that the garage backside roof overhang be 18" to match the existing residence roof conditions. The backside wall can be planted up to the eves with appropriate planting material. The decision of the Committee was unanimous. Please let me know if you have any questions. PRM: JR RH CITY— NEALIS — Tonsich • C14 o� Ro lli..S JJ,PP March 31, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: 40 Eastifeld Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bauer: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com We have received your letter dated March 23, 2003 pertaining to your concerns for the proposed development of the detached garage at 40 Eastfield Drive and a letter dated March 24, 2003 pertaining to your concern about the property line in the area of the proposed guest house on the same property. Your March 23, 2003 letter will be submitted to the City Council as part of the information packet on this case at their next meeting, which will be on April 14, 2003. As for verification of the property line, I contacted Mr. Jerry Rodin, Architect for this project and was assured that a survey of the property lines was done by a certified and licensed engineer prior to submittal of the application to the City. The City requires that all plans submitted for City's consideration are prepared by a certified and licensed engineer or architect and that they are stamped by those professionals. During our conversation, you mentioned that if I found out that a survey was done, that you would be satisfied and would not want to include your March 24, 2003 letter in the City Council information packet. Based on our discussion and your expressed satisfaction with the answer about the survey, only the March 23, 2003 letter will be included. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (310) 377-1521. Yblanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Nick Tonsich, property owner Jerry Rodin, AIA 23 March 03 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA Reference: Zoning Case # 653 Dear Sirs: My wife and I own the adjacent property to the subject property. Our address is 38 Eastfield Dr: My master bedroom is 10 from the subject property s proposed new 3 car garage. This proposed new 3 car garage encroaches on the 20 setback requirement. I raise the following points for your consideration :- 1. The 20 setback is a legal requirement — not a goal . 2. When the subject property (40 Eastfield) was originally built, a 2 car garage was attached to the house. At some later date (probably 35 years ago) this original garage was converted to a bedroom and the existing and detached 2 car garage with a separate detached small tack room was built within 10 of my adjoining property line. These detached buildings were built without benefit of a building permit. 3. A grandfather justification of encroachment would perhaps justify a new 2 car garage; but certainly, not a three car garage. 4. Although the footprint of the proposed new 3 car garage is slightly less than the combined footprint of the existing 2 car garage and tack room; the volume of the new 3 car garage is about 50% bigger than the combination because the tack room is very short in height. 5. The proposed new 3 car garage will certainly increase noise by 50% because there is additional garage traffic since a guest house is also being built and the parking for this guest house is the new 3 car garage. 6. Both the subject property (40 Eastfield) and his adjoining neighbor (42 Eastfiled) access their property via a 20 wide driveway easement across the front yard of my property (38 Eastfield). The proposed guest house with 3 car garage would certainly increase the car traffic noise across/on my property. My recommendation is as follows :- If the subject property wants a new 3 car garage, it should not be built within the 20 easement of my adjoining property. Thank you Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Work (562) 982-7363 Home (310) 265-5272 24 March 03 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA Reference: Zoning Case # 653 Dear Sirs: My wife and I own the adjacent property to the subject property. Our address is 38 Eastfield Dr. I inspected the lower proposed guesthouse location stakes again yesterday. It is my opinion that the proposed location is within 20 of where I believe the common property line is between the subject property and my property. Therefore, I request that the subject property be required to have a legal survey done to validate the exact location of the property line. Thank you Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Work (562) 982-7363 Home (310) 265-5272 03/24/03 07:46 FAX 3104975295 C17 AV/FLT CNTL • • Zeal. 24 March '03 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA Reference: Zoning Case # 653 Dear Sirs: My wife and 1 own the adjacent property to the subject property. Our address is 38 Eastfield Dr. I inspected the lower proposed guesthouse location stakes again yesterday. It is my opinion that the proposed location is within 20' of where I believe the common property line is between the subject property and my property_ Therefore, I request that the subject property be required to have a legal survey done to validate the exact location of the common property line. Thank you '' Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Work (562) 982-7363 Home (310) 265-5272 03/23/03 07:49 FAX 3104975295 C17 AV/FLT CNTL I j001 • • 23 March `03 City Council City of Rolling Hills, CA Reference: Zoning Case # 653 Dear Sirs: My wife and I own the adjacent property to the subject property. Our address is 38 Eastficld Dr. My master bedroom is 10' from the subject property's proposed new 3 car garage. This proposed new 3 car garage encroaches on the 20' setback requirement. I raise the following points for your consideration :- 1 _ The 20' setback is a legal requirement — not a "goal". 2. When the subject property (40 Eastfield) was originally built, a 2 car garage was attached to the house. At some later date (probably 35 years ago) this original garage was converted to a bedroom and the "existing and detached" 2 car garage with a separate detached small tack room was built within 10' of my adjoining property line. These detached buildings were built without benefit of a building permit. 3. A "grandfather" justification of encroachment would perhaps justify a new 2 car garage; but certainly, not a three car garage_ 4. Although the "footprint" of the proposed new 3 car garage is slightly less than the combined footprint of the existing 2 car garage and tack room; the volume of the new 3 car garage is about 50% bigger than the combination because the tack room is very short in height. 5. The proposed new 3 car garage will certainly increase noise by 50% because there is additional garage traffic since a guest house is also being built and the parking for this guest house is the new 3 car garage. 6. Both the subject property (40 Eastfield) and his adjoining neighbor (42 Eastfiled) access their property via a 20' wide driveway easement across the front yard of my property (38 Eastfield). The proposed guest house with 3 car garage would certainly increase the car traffic noise across/on my property. My recommendation is as follows :- If the subject property wants a new 3 car garage, it should not be built within the 20'easement of my adjoining property. Thankou Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Work (562) 982-7363 Home (310) 265-5272 i C1i o/ RO//L4 Jhf/ .1. February 25, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 f I'. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter is to inform you that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at the February 24, 2003 meeting voted to continue consideration of your case to the March 10, 2003 meeting. Mayor Lay explained that due to the absence of Councilmember Pernell and Councilmember Heinsheimer not visiting the site, he felt that there was not enough council representation to consider this case. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, r ;:)tolanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Jerry Rodin, Architect Ci1 ol� February 11, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653. Dear Mr. Tonsich: As per your request, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills at their February 10, 2003 meeting voted to continue this case to their next meeting scheduled for February 24, 2003. Please submit revised plans and calculations no later than Wednesday morning, February 19, 2003 to allow staff to review the revisions and prepare a staff report. Should you not be able to meet this time line, the next City Council meeting, after the 2/24/03 meeting, will be held on March 10, 2003. Please be advised that with the upcoming election on March 4, 2003, the make up of the City Council could change by the March 10, 2003 meting. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call meat (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, 1` Xolanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Jerry Rodin, AIA • • City ol Rolling January 15, 2003 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653. Dear Mr. Tonsich: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com The City Council at their January 13, 2003 meeting scheduled a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project for THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2003 at 4:30 PM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints and roof ridges; • Stake the limits/footprints of all of the additions; • Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed additions including the guest house and detached garage; • Stake (delineate) the corral; area of the proposed future stable and • Delineate/stake the location of the required setbacks; front, and side. After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the City Council will take place on Monday, February 10, 2003 at 7:30 PM. rear The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincer, Yol Pia j) to Schwartz ning Director Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines (Architect) cc:- Jerry Rodin, Architect December 2, 2002 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • 411 Cit%y. o/ y. A I ...>;:,,,., .,,,:e, <.,',i NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: Your development application was reported to the City Council at their November 25, 2002 meeting. The City Council reviewed your proposal and took the case under jurisdiction. Their concerns included the maximum disturbed area, the location of the proposed stable in proximity. to the roadway easement and the general magnitude of the proposed development. As stated in the November 20, 2002 letter, the Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) and 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be staved until the Council completes its proceedinas in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the City Council shall have thirty days from initiating the action to hear the case at a public hearing. Therefore, a public hearing before the City Council will be scheduled for Monday, December 23, 2002. However, we have been informed that several of the Council members will be unavailable on that date, and therefore, due to lack of quorum, the December 23, 2002 City Council meeting will be cancelled. The public hearing in your case will be continued to the Monday, January 13, 2003 meeting, at which time the City Council will schedule a field visit to the site for a later date. You will receive the notice of public hearing and the staff report prior to the January 13, 2003 meeting. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Council may have. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. wish you a joyful Holiday season and a happy and prosperous New Year. Sinc, rely, 44/�w. t /olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Jerry Rodin, AIA IGO Pr., r I November 20, 2002 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • City ol Roiling .1 A.N NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on November 19, 2002, granting a request in Zoning Case No. 653 for additions, guesthouse and detached garage. That action accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on Monday. November 25. 2002. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Council may have. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's Resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to cause to be recorded. an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. Instructions for recordation will be forwarded to you after the Council's proceedings. Appeal procedures are attached. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter: Sincerely, �"olanta Schwartz Tanning Director cc: Jerry Rodin, AIA • C1iy ol R0fI4 October 18, 2002 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances for40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling. Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on October 15, 2002 directed staff to prepare a resolution, with conditions, to approve your request in Zoning Case No. 653. The Commission will consider this resolution at their November 19, 2002 meeting. The resolution with findings and conditions of approval will be forwarded to you prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Please review the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution unless an appeal has been filed by you, any interested party or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission action, accompanied by the records of the proceedings will be presented to the City Council as a report item on their agenda at the Council's regular meeting following the Commission's approval. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Mr. Jerry Rodin, Architect • O/� /E0ff 4..Jh/L5 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION August 21, 2002 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653. Dear Mr. Tonsich: The Planning Commission will conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 5:30 PM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints and roof ridges; • Stake the limits/footprints of all of the additions; • Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed additions including the guest house and mixed use structure; • Stake (delineate) the area of the proposed future stable and corral; • Delineate/stake the location of the required setbacks; front, rear and side. The silhouette shall remain on the property during the entire review process of this case, including City Council's review. It is, therefore, imperative that the construction of the silhouette be of a somewhat sturdy nature. After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 at 7:30 PM at City Hall. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. S. cerely, olanta Schwartz Planning Director Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines (Architect) cc: Jerry Rudin, Architect ®Pr.iuc.d or, W.or.yr • • eiiy INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. Bracing should be provided where possible. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are constructed., If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (310) 377-1521. SECTION PLAN Printed on Recycled Paper. AUG-14-2002 07:06 BOEING AVIONICS B52 2M 562 593 0333 P.01/01 14 Aug "02 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills, CA Reference: Your Notice for Aug 20, '02 Public Hearing on Zoning Case # 653 Dear Sirs: My wife and I own thc adjacent property to the subject property. Our address is 38 Eastfield Dr. We have done a preliminary review of the Site Plan and have the following concerns which we would like addressed at the public meeting :- 1. Potential Noise Problem of thc proposed garage/recreation room since it is much larger than the existing structures, is facing differently, is much larger than the existing structures, and encroaches 10 feet of the 20 foot setback requirement along the entire length of the proposed new building. This puts this structure parallel and within 20 feet of our master bedroom. 2. Potential Noise Problem of proposed new guest-house since it encroaches 10 feet of the 20 foot setback requirement along our common property line and noise would echo up the hill side to our house. 3. Potential View Problem of the proposed garage/recreation room since it is much larger than the existing structures, is facing differently, is much larger than the existing structures, is taller than the original structure, and encroaches 10 feet of the 20 foot setback requirement along the entire length of the proposed new building. Even though there are trees along this property line, the top part of the building would be within our house's field of view. 4. Potential View Problem of proposed new guest-house since it encroaches 10 feet of the 20 foot setback requirement along our common property line and is in our back yard field of view. 5. Potential negative impact to surrounding properties since the three adjoining houses of this site are all built close to the property line (within 10 feet in some cases). The concern is the foot print of the structures relative the the green space. Thank you Bill Bauer 38 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Work (562) 982-7363 Horne (310) 265-5272 TOTAL P.01 City RJ/ STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING August 8, 2002 Mr. Nicholas Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO, 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 653, Request for Site Plan Review for an addition to a single family residence, construction of a new mixed use structure, (garage with a recreation room) and construction of a guest-house; request for Conditional Use Permits to construct a detached mixed use structure and a guest-house; request for a Variance to permit encroachment of the proposed mixed use structure and guest house into the side yard setback and rear yard setback respectively at an existing single family residence at 40 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 91-EF) Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Tonsich: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application, Your application for Zoning Case No. 653 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. August 20. 2002 The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, August 16, 2002. We will forward the report to you. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. ncerely, olanta Schwartz Principal Planner cc: Jerry Rodin, Architect Printed on Recycled Paper _Jul 16 02 01:50p GLASER,TONSICH &BRRJEVICH (3101241-1212 p.1 GLASER, TONSICH & BRAJEVICH LLP ATTORNEYS July 16, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bnd. Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 ATTN: Yolanta Schultz, Principal Planner RE: 40 Eastfield Drive. Rollinv Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schultz: This letter will serve to confirm that Jerry Rodin has my permission to sign project documents regarding 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274, for the purposes of applications for conditional use permits, variances, environmental reports, site plan review, and building and safety. Thank you for your attention to this matter. cc: Peggie Miner BEVERLY 14 LLS Veruly yours, Ni as G. Tonsich PORT OF Los ANGELS S SAN FnANCISGO 222 W. 6114 ST.. SUM 1000 SAN Yeutto, GA 90731 �ELEP,Io c: 310.241.1200 FACSIMILE: 310.2 41.1212 EMAIL: glblaw@Ca11111ink.net