733, 664 sq ft for an addition of a, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
20070321e20
T RECORDER'S USE ONLY
THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION.
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
ZONING CASE NO. 733
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
xx
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
18 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 69-EF) CA 90274
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 733
I (We) certify (or declare) and
Sin osep t' W .Rich
Name typed or printed
18 Eastfield RQ d
Address
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
City/State
signatures must be acknowledged by a notazpy- lic.,
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On 1 h . t 9pp7before me, _Nan ry R . V_,n-lira
personally appeared JoselD.h W, Rich
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 hismer/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) r tha n tibr uann hahalf of tutjiCAe
person(s) acted, executed the instrument. - • NANCY R. VENTURA
ss by han nd dficia eal.
Sienature of J
SITE PLAN REVIEW XX
VARIANCE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
alty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
Name typed or printed
Address
City/State
Nntarr Puh1 4 n
commission s 1641135
Notary Public - California
Los Angeles County
o t ary _ — Comm. Expires Feb 4, 2010
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Proario-il
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-15
Exhbil A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION ON A PROPERTY THAT
REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DUE TO
EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION IN
ZONING CASE NO. 733, AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 69-A-
EF), (RICH).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Rich, with
respect to real property located at 18 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 69-A-EF), RoIling Hills,
requesting to construct a 664 square foot addition to the existing 5,188 square foot
residence and reduce the covered porches by 232 square feet. When completed the
residence would be 5,852 square feet with a 1,192 square foot garage, basement and
accessory structures.
Section 2. In 1996, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review
request'fd'I- a new single family residence and other improvements to replace an existing
residence on subject property. In 1998, the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a cabana and modification to the 1996 Site Plan
Review approval for additional grading.
Section 3. In June 2005 the Planning Commission approved a request to
convert a 320 square foot stable to a recreation room, to grade for and construct a new
450 square foot stable with 360 square feet covered porch and approximately 2,200
square foot corral area in the rear of the property, to add 109 square feet to the existing
residence, reduce the existing entryway by 84 square feet and to construct a 446 square
foot addition to the basement. A Variance to exceed the maximum allowed disturbed
area (48.4%) was also granted. All previous approvals contain a condition that any
further development on the property is subject to Planning Commission review and
approval.
Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 733 on October 17, 2006, November 21, 2006
and at afield trip on November 21, 2006. The applicants were notified of the hearings in
writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in said proposal. The Planning Commission heard a report from the City staff
and reviewed, analyzed and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants'
representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically
exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
• •
Section 6 Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or
any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or
repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an
increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the
effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in
any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for
the 664 square foot addition and the restriction placed in 1996, 1998 and 2005 on any
future development on subject property the Planning Commission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, and
surrounding uses because the proposed addition complies with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures and equestrian uses. The project conforms to
Zoning Code setbacks and no grading is proposed.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the
lot. The proposed addition will be constructed on an existing building pad. The project is
of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the addition will not impact the
view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their
property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property
owners.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site. Although the disturbed net lot area exceeds the maximum permitted,
the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to
properties in the vicinity.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the maximum
extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot and the addition will not cause the lot to look
overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing
driveway.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves a Site Plan Review for 664 square foot
addition and the total proposed development due to the restriction placed on the
previously approved applications for subject property, in accordance with the
development plan dated October 11, 2006 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 733
subject to the following conditions:
• •
A. The Site Plan approval shall expire within two years from the effective date
of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Section 17.46.080 of the Zoning
Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants written notice to
cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested,
has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied
with unless otherwise set forth in the permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering Ordinance and
others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated October 11, 2006, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 10,223 square feet or 16.4% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 21,447
square feet or 34.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30,236 square feet or 48.4% in
conformance with the Variance approval granted in 2005.
H. Building pad coverage on the residential building pad shall not exceed
31.7% not including the attached trellis and not including 585 square foot of covered
porch.
I. There shall be no grading for this project.
J. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope
factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste
resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water
efficient Landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
K. 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.
L. During construction, conformance with the Air Quality Management
District requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local
ordinances and engineering practices shall be required so that people or property are not
exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows,
erosion, or land subsidence.
M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site
and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway
easements.
N. 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.
O. During construction perimeter easements shall remain clear and free of
debris, parked vehicles, building material, building equipment and all other construction
items.
P. 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 stormwater drainage facilities.
Q. 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.
R. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
permits.
S. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would constitute
additional structural development or grading, shall require the filing of a new
application for approval by the PIanning Commission.
T. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this Site Plan pursuant to Section 17.46.065 of the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval
shall not be effective.
U. All conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, which apply, must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
• •
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2006.
-77f4r,
AIVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN L.`'ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2006-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
AN ADDITION ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING
COMMISSION REVIEW DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
RESTRICTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 733, AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 69-
A-EF), (RICH).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 19, 2006 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Henke, Sommer and
Chairman Witte.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
S.l�--z
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
STABLE AND CORRAL; GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STABLE INTO A
RECREATION ROOM; GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT
AND A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A
PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEW DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
RESTRICTION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IN ZONING CASE NO. 703, AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 69-
A-EF), (RICH).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Rich,
with respect to real property located at 18 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 69-A-EF), Rolling
Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a 450 square
foot stable with 360 square foot covered porch and -a-corral; Conditional Use
Permit to convert an existing 320 square foot stable into a recreation room, a
Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Site
Plan Review for the proposed development on a property that requires Planning
Commission review, due to existing structural development restriction approved
in 1996 and in 1998. An addition of 446 square feet to the existing basement and
modification to the entryway are also proposed.
Section 2. In 1996, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan
Review request for a new single family residence and other improvements to
replace an existing residence on subject property. On July 21, 1998, the Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to construct a cabana and
modification to the 1996 Site Plan Review approval for additional grading. Both,
the 1996 and 1998 Resolutions of Approval contain a condition that any further
development on the property is subject to Planning Commission review and
approval.
Section 3 The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 703 on April 19, 2005, May
17, 2005 and at a field trip on May 17, 2005. The applicants were notified of the
hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from
all persons interested in said proposal. The Planning Commission heard a report
from the City staff and reviewed, analyzed and studied the proposal. The
applicants and the applicants' representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 4. The City staff received a letter from a neighbor objecting to
the proposed location of the stable. The Planning Commission reviewed and
analyzed the letter and scheduled a visit to view the proposed project from the
objecting neighbor's property. Prior to the field trip, the neighbor submitted a
letter recanting her objection and requesting that the field trip to view the project
from her property be cancelled.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section b Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a
grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any
expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of
the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month
period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for grading for the stable
and corral and the restriction placed in 1996 and 1998 on any future development
on subject property the Planning Commission makes the following findings of
fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
and surrounding uses because the proposed stable complies with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setbacks and the grading will be minimal.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The proposed stable will be constructed on an existing building
pad and minimal grading is required. The project is of sufficient distance from
nearby residences so that the stable will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property
without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site. Although the disturbed net lot area exceeds the
maximum permitted, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The grading for the
stable and corral will increase the disturbed lot area by 8.5%, which is minimal.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the stable will not cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as
to maintain open space.
• •
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize
an existing driveway. No new stable access from Outrider Road or Eastifeld
Drive is proposed.
F. The proposed project is to construct a stable and corral area of
sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto in
conformance with site plan review requirements.
G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A
Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot
disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. With respect to this
request for a Variance for lot disturbance of 48.4%, the Planning Commission
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. The Variance for
the total disturbance is necessary because the configuration, and topography of
the lot create a difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
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 of the existing conditions of the lot. The existing
320 square foot stable is located in proximity to the cabana and swimming pool
and is not utilized for a stable. The proposed stable will be located away from the
living area" of the lot and will retain an equestrian flavor. The stable will only
minimally affect the disturbance of the lot. 328 cubic yards of grading is required
for this construction, which includes excavation for a basement. One of the goals
of the General Plan is to encourage construction of equestrian uses, which this
Variance would accommodate.
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. All development will
occur within required setbacks, and will be adequately screened to prevent
adverse visual impact to surrounding properties.
• •
Section 8. Section 17.16.210(A)(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permits approval of a recreation room under certain conditions, provided the
Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is
requesting to convert the existing 320 square foot stable into a recreation room.
With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the recreation
room 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 recreation room 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 conversion will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed recreation room will be located in a cluster with
other structures and will promote pad integration. The proposed recreation room
is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it 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 recreation room 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 320 square foot size of the
recreation room is less than the maximum permitted under the Municipal Code.
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 stable structure, adjacent corral and access.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the
record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Site Plan Review for
grading and construction of a 450 square foot stable, a Variance request to exceed
the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot and a Conditional Use Permit to
convert an existing 320 square foot stable into a recreation room, and a Site Plan
Review for the total proposed development due to the restriction placed on the
previously approved applications for subject property, in accordance with the
• •
development plan dated March 28, 2005 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case
No. 703 subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan, Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval if work has not
commenced as defined in Sections 17.38.070, 17.42.070 and 17.46.080 of the
Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of
these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the
applicants written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing
has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant
fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must
be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of
the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof
Covering Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated March 28,
2005, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,254 square feet or 14.8%'
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
20,352 square feet or 32.6% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30,236 square feet or
48.4% in conformance with the Variance approval.
H. Building pad coverage on the stable pad shall not exceed 25.6%,
including the covered patio. Building pad coverage on the residential building
pad shall not exceed 31.5% including covered porches and 28.8% not including
covered porches.
I. Grading for the stable and excavation for the basement shall not
exceed 328 cubic yards of cut and 328 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on
site.
J. The stable and recreation room shall be screened from adjacent
properties. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as
not to obstruct views from neighboring properties, but to screen these structures
• •
on the lot. If trees are to be incorporated into the landscaping scheme, at maturity
they shall be no higher than the ridge height of the stable and the recreation room
on the lot.
K. The stable and corral shall be located a minimum of twenty-five
feet from the rear property line and twenty feet from the side property line.
L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the
maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system,
utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using
"hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and
utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in
accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
M. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be permitted in the
recreation room. No sleeping quarters shall be permitted in the recreation room.
N. The stable shall be used exclusively for keeping permitted domestic
animals. Commercial uses are not permitted.
O. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize
the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust andobjectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
P. During construction, conformance with the Air Quality Management
District requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and
local ordinances and engineering practices shall be required so that people or
property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors,
landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence.
Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water in an approved manner.
R. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the
project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby
roadway easements.
S. 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.
T. If any walls are to be incorporated into the design of this project,
they shall not be located in any setback nor shall they exceed 3-feet in height.
• •
U. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water
from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed
in an approved manner and shall remain on the property and not cross over any
easements.
V. 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 stormwater drainage facilities.
W. 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.
X. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of any permits.
Y. 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.
Z. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would
constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
AA. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals,
pursuant to Sections 17.38.060, 17.42.060 and 17.46.065 of the Zoning Ordinance,
or the approval shall not be effective.
AB. All conditions of this Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and
Variance approval, which apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of
a building permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF JUTE 2005.
RcYG R S6MMER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN L. I ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE AND CORRAL; GRANTING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STABLE INTO
A RECREATION ROOM; GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL
DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 703, AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 69-
A-EF), (RICH).
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on June 14, 2005 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner DeRoy, Hankins, Witte and Chairman Sommer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
,?.• l
DEPUT'V CITY CLERK