Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
599, Construct a new tennis court, Staff Reports
DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • R City 01) Atli" _AIL 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 Agenda Item No.: 6.A. Mtg. Date: 2/28/2000 FEBRUARY 28, 2000 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR,.PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 599: An appeal of the following Planning Commission approved requests: (1) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (2) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, (3) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, (4) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (5) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (6) Site Plan Review for the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio, 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF) BACKGROUND A. Since the City Council field trip on Wednesday, February 9, 2000 and the continued public hearing on February 14, 2000, plans were revised to reduce the size of the 7,000 square foot tennis court to a of 5,111 square foot sports court which had been originally proposed by the applicants on September 21,1999 to the Planning Commission. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Gregorio is attached requesting that the City Council review the reduction in the size of the sports court and take action on their case this evening without conducting a second field trip. The revised plans do not require a (1) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (2) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (3) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. Now, the applicants' requests include the following: 1. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 800 square foot guest house to be located at a lower portion of the lot, 186 feet east of the existing residence. An 82 foot long retaining wall that will not be higher than 3.5 feet is proposed to be constructed 5 feet west of the guest house. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 1 Printed on Recycled Pricier. 1 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 5,111 square foot sports court 4 feet east of the guest house. The sports court will be 50 feet wide by 105 feet long. A 3-foot high, retaining wall that is 145 feet long is proposed to separate the guest house from the sports court. The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the sports court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. The City Council should note that the Planning Commissioners discussed and included conditions in the attached Resolution No. 99-19 related to lowering the height of the proposed perimeter fence to 6 feet and prohibiting the use of windblocking slats in the proposed fence. 3. A request for Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at the property site. A Site Plan Review table depicting each submittal; Existing, Original Proposal (sports court), Proposal Approved by the Planning Commission (tennis court), and the Current Proposal (sports court); is attached. The revised plan as presented conforms with Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) (Guest House) and 17.16.210(A)(7) (Recreation court), and Chapter 17.46 (Site Plan Review) of the Zoning Code. B. The City Council took Zoning Case No. 599 under their jurisdiction at their regular meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the public hearing has . been continued for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. C. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-19 that included a regulation -size 7,000 square foot tennis court on December 21, 1999 at their regular meeting. The vote was 4-0. Commissioner Margeta was absent. Letters are attached from Mr. and Mrs. Ken Leeuwenburgh, 12 Eastfield Drive, and Mrs. Marilyn Malmuth, 4 Outrider Road. D. On August 2, 1999, applications were filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot sports court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and sports court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the public hearing process following the Planning Commission field trip, a regulation -size 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed by the applicants to replace the aforementioned sports court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. E. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage was constructed in 1970 following the demolition of the previous dwelling unit. The pool was constructed in 1963, additions and remodeling took place in 1985, and there was a spa addition and pool remodel in 1993. An approved 75 square foot addition and remodel is currently taking place at the residence. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 2 • • 4 J• F Grading for the sports court will require 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total cut will be 435 cubic yards and the total fill will be 435 cubic yards. The graded area of the guest house and sports court will be 10,000 square feet (10,000 square feet maximum). G. The structural lot coverage proposed is 13,393 square feet or 20% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 23,433 square feet or 34.9% (35% maximum permitted). H. The total area of disturbance will be 26,500 square feet or 39.6% [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist]. Coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad is 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, the coverage on the 8,014 square foot guest house and sports court pad is 7,760 square feet or 76.2%, and the coverage on the future 1,265 square foot stable and corral building pad is 450 square feet or 35%. The total 31,595 square foot building pads will will have a coverage of 42.1%. (Planning Commission guideline is 30%). Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the western portion of the lot off Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road where there is a circular driveway. Access to the guest house and sports court will be from the easement at the southwest. K. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the eastern portion of lot. Access to the stable is available from Eastfield Drive along the southern easement. The slope access varies from 2 to 3% near the residence to 17% at the future stable and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. L. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: 1. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. 3. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 3 • • r 4. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. 5. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 6. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 7. 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. 8. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. 9. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. 10. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. 11. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. 12. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. 13. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans and take public testimony. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 4 0 I A. That there are eonopdone| or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties inthe same vicinity and zone; and B'That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property hQhbo possessed byother properties inthe same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and O.That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E.That the variance does not grant special privilege; F.That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to n|dnA and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the (3enana| Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. u. Requires all guest uzservant quarters on same recorded lot aomain house Required condition. b. Maximum B00oq�t. floor area 8OVoq.ft.proposed. c. Nokitchen orother cooking facilities permitted Required condition. d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. Nmvehicular access orpaved parking area permitted to bewithin 501 of proposed guest house orservant quarters [ Noguest may remain inoccupancy more than 30 days inany Gmonth period Required condition. Over 235feet from paved parking. Required condition. g.Renting ofguest house is prohibited Required condition. h.Comply with all requirements Required condition. i Preliminary landscaping required Required condition. Zoning Case No. 599 • a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area. b. Prohibited in front yard. c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements. d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet norbe exposed to the exterior. e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage). f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses. g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. j. Requires City/County approved drainage system. k. Requires screening on all four sides. I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements. m. Prohibits court lighting. n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 6 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral at lower eastern portion of the property. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the sports court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Conforms with lot coverage limitations. Structural lot coverage proposed is 20% and total lot coverage proposed is 34.9% Existing grade is 6.52:1. Existing slope does not exceed a 2:1 grade. Proposed cut and fill will be 720 cubic yards for the sports court. Sports Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/410 cu. yds fill soil Guest House:125 cu.yds cut soiV25 cu. yds fill soil Total balanced 435 cu. yds cut soiV435 cu. yds fill soil for entire project. Graded area of the guest house and sports court building pad will be 7,760 sq.ft. and less than 10,000 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review RAS-1 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for any grading requiring a grading permit; any new building structure (except barn/stable w/out grading; or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) GRADING Requires balanced cut and fill DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad area; any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). No encroachments into No encroachments into setbacks. Residence I Garage I Swim Pool I Service Yd. Total 10.5% 25.5% N/A 25.5% setbacks. :ColN�iviis NIS. Clop No encroachments into setbacks. No encroachments into setbacks. 5,264 sq.ft. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. I Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. Guest Hse. 800 sq.ft. I Guest Hse. 800 sq.ft. Guest Hse. 800 sq.ft. Sports Ct. 5,111 sq.ft. I Tennis Ct. 7,000 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 5,111 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. I Stable 450 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. 7,032 sq.ft. Total 13,393 sq.ft. Total 15,282 sq.ft. Total 13,393 sq.ft. 20% 34.9% 325 cu. yds cut soil 325 cu. yds fill soil 39.2% 22.8% 37.8% 435 cu. yds cut soil/ 435 cu. yds fill soil (Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/ 410 cu. yds fill soil) (Guest House: 125 cu.yds cut soil 25 cu. yds fill soil) 41.1% 20% 34.9% 435 cu. yds cut soil/ 435 cu. yds fill soil (Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/ 410 cu. yds fill soil) (Guest House: 125 cu.yds cut soil 25 cu. yds fill soil) 39.6% RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE GUEST HOUSE & TENNIS/SPORTS COURT PAD COVERAGE STABLE & CORRAL BUILDING PAD TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. N/A N/A 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. I None N/A Existing circular driveway at western portion of lot at the corner of Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road. I N/A N/A PEW ORT :S tJ 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 76.2% of 7,760 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad O OS% `APPFiOV ]NItC'CtVllitl 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 97.3% of 8,014 sq.ft. pad 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 76.2% of 7,760 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 42.1% of 31,595 sq.ft. pads 47.7% of 31,849 sq.ft. pads 1450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. Same corral on lower building pad. Proposed accessway from the easement at the southwest with a slope access of 2%-3% near the Same residence and up to 17% at the future stable that will not be greater than 25%. No change Planning Commission Review IPlanning Commission Review No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review 42.1 % of 31,595 sq.ft. pads Same Same No change City Council Review City Council Review • Joseph and Laura Gregorio 16 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 FEB 2 3 2000 February 23, 2000 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS wv Ms. Lola Ungar Planning Director, City of Rolling Hills No. 2. Portu uese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Ms. Ungar, You should have received a revised drawingof oursports court and guest house: from. Criss Gunderson; We are sending you thisletter to help -you understand what we are interested in accomplishing at Monday nights City Council. meeting. Because the court size has been reduced, this cancels the need for any variances. We would like to have our sports court and guest house approved.. The court has remained in the same position that has already been -viewed by the Council. Due to the nature of the situation,.. wedo not wish.. this.. to go back to the PIanning..Commision seeing that they have already recommended for approval the larger court. Nor do we wish to flag the courtfor the fourth time. We_respectfully request that our.project be approved..on.Monday night so.that_we. may move forward to complete our guest house and sports court. Thank you, Toe and Laura Grego • RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIvu i it STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMii rEu DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio with respect to real property located at 16 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 68-B-EF) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and tennis court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the hearing process, a regulation -sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on September 21, 1999, October 19, 1999 and November 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on October 12, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. The following concerns were expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views. Section 3. On September 1, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project -would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A Negative Declaration was, prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on November 6,1999. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Commission finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. 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(A)(1) is required because it states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 22.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 structural lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and two bordering roadways exist at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates '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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 2 OF 14 • • standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 22.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit coverage by structures of 22.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 7. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (A)(2) is required because it states that coverage by structures and all other impervious surfaces, known as total lot coverage, ' shall not be more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total lot coverage will be 37.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two bordering roadways at. the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 37.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 3 OF 14 Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit total lot coverage of 37.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 9. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total disturbance will be 41.1% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two bordering roadways at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of . the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Disturbed area on the site will be 41.1% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit a disturbed area of 41.1%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 11. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval for a guest house under certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot guest house at the central portion of the lot. 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 construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 4 OF 14 • 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 guest house 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 guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed at the central portion of the lot and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house 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 guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 1.98 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies . with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the guest house equals the 800 square foot maximum permitted and: the guest house does not encroach into anysetback 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot guest house in accordance with the development plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 599 subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. Section 13. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a tennis court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct a 7,000 square foot tennis court east of the guest house. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 5 OF 14 • • A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the tennis court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed tennis court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on. a 1.98 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape ,and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed a maximum graded area of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit .in Zoning Case No. 599 for a proposed 7,000 square foot tennis court, as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 6 OF 14 Section 15. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 66,967 square feet. The proposed residence (5,264 sq.ft.), garage (787 sq.ft.), swimming pool (881 sq.ft.), guest house (800 sq.ft.), tennis court (7,000 sq.ft.), service yard (100 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 15,282 square feet which constitutes 22.8% of the lot though not within ; the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement was approved by Variance : in Section 6. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 25,322: square feet which . equals 37.8% of the lot, though not within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement was approved by Variance in Section. 8. 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 nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot which has a gentle slope have been considered, and the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, a 3-foot high, 169-foot retaining wall, and a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, although the lot coverage maximum will be exceeded, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this long, RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 7 OF 14 • • r narrow gently sloping lot. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it 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. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. Although the proposed structures are located in the rear yard, they will not effect a change to the existing residence. The development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. The structures proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development . plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural, drainage courses will continue at the east side (rear) of this lot. G. 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. H. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize an existing driveway at thesouthwestern portion of the property off Eastfield Drive for access. I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with the incorporation of mitigation measures to the project that are incorporated within this Resolution. Section 16. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 599 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this Resolution. Section 17. The Variances regarding lot coverages approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10, the Conditional Use Permits regarding the 800 square foot guest house and 7,000 tennis court approved in Section 12 and 14, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 16 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 8 OF 14 A. The Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Plan Review 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) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated October 19, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. • E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance- with site plan review and recreation court limitations. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15,282 square feet or 22.8% i n conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 6. - G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 25,322 square feet or 37.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 8. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 27,539 square feet or 41.1% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 10. I. Residential building pad coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, coverage on the 7,800 square foot guest house and tennis court pad shall not exceed 8,014 square feet or 97.3%, coverage on the 1,265 square foot stable and corral pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 35%.and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 47.7%. J. The guest house shall not exceed 800 square feet and the surface of the tennis court shall not exceed 7,000 square feet in area. The location of the guest RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 9 OF 14 house and tennis court shall be as depicted on the Development Plan dated October 19,1999 and marked Exhibit A. K. Balanced cut and fill for the tennis court shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not exceed 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total grading shall be balanced for a total cut of 435 cubic yards and a total fill of 435 cubic yards and any soil preparation for the '•guest house and tennis court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. The 169 foot long retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 3 feet in height. O.- . The floor area of the guest house shall not exceed 800 square feet. P. No kitchen or other cookingfacilities shall be provided within the guest house. .Q. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the guest house. R. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in any six month period. S. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. T. Tennis court lighting shall not be permitted. U. The tennis court shall be screened with 6 foot high fencing on all four sides. V. The tennis court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry and shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Landscape screening shall not include Eucalyptus or Pine trees. W . Noise from tennis court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 10 OF 14 or • X. The loft area of the stable shall have no glazed windows. Y. 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. Z. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount :of . the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading and building permit and shall be retained with the, City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the., City Manager determines that the landscaping . was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. AA. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the tennis court. AB. 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. AC. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AD. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the guest house and RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 11 OF 14 tennis court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the rear of the lot at the east. AF. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AG. During construction, in the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. AI. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and relatedtraffic 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 hot tointerfere with the quiet residentialenvironment of the City of Rolling Hills. • AJ. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems as well as tennis court runoff, and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the rear or east of the lot. AK. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AL. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AM. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. AN. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 12 OF 14 • • AO. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AP. 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. AQ. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AR. 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 .bey submitted to the, Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of :Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope .ratio. : AS..: The applicants shall. execute ate Affidavit. - of 'Acceptance ` of: ;. all conditions of these Variance, Conditional, Use Permit . and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, :-or the approval shall not be, effective: ' AT. All conditions of these Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building " or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY O7DECl q[Bl 2y 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 1.k.v MARILY KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO.99-19 PAGE 13 OF 14 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMi i i w STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of :the Planning Commission on December 21, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: • Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. None. Commissioner Margeta. None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. � c.k DEPUTY CI CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 14 OF 14 01/10/2000 17:23 13108318545 0 • • PAGE 01 P•hitit-Tonwift,ftti lb% 1•••• 1,s 1%.1 t;%a ply SSPHiZ ips ftriedt- 414 %tau. ta,9,4, _/40;e4i4.44" 414* R•eahah:" /bib qt-art _� .. .ft .. a► 76- . • /6. ismoffsw DbfearoCisoi tr.. °-11v444c, ft• o;My"6" IY- E*w*jL et, IS I. a° Tel -Pitai4 fAt J- 210 **'r 11/16/1999 :.6:57 13108318545 0 %tJo J +s4. aL P /, r l 4 ct at T f 4 AN nut oo Mira ri % VS 104.4 .1 Zbyv 6.46Sja. • Pi Cairn. Me 4 re. �v c ppex•'4-;al" 4, l/crt.t.,►4.y,,4ss,, t4•i "Co P o •' d.o 0-g-sPoiele r 44 le • Me4 U cZAN 1- 7m l o 4 4-4 rr-e,t.e,,,yt,, 6.46-.1,AJ ► a:, 4.0 w..�,a... PAGE 01 70.w, re;, } ..la c.,., 7"��'ti►i.dziea.N.4 v ' Po rA.4: dec4.4-4, d..&4 * s.ms,, cL i s4e . P4w,,44,,,c„k, ci0644. tx.4341 t ill rtgi l ra....Aekt a,. cD-f ct.vko7144,w 7� i C1421440vilt t, " . - 1 �� cz.'iA-Q_ I'J L p‘..fu c. 9 c.+. (AA A o07) 4244Cot 0.104.4~.• E 4:244-411.11kompilaidet.wkAA.Z.71);‘, , U u.s4-g-,AceArt‘-ea4ca.0 /0 6-4) GUL4, es , .. h ea.n imaiVuLAA14.. 24. ucto to 4-9, at,.a . 4L ..0... .a s he-ta..te aLtAAPoter t / b.. f Le {r eLISL.1 1))4104ACL t .V2.«+.i'G..LVN, £44 ..s, to 604 GIAt re . 45 fie..., * ca CMLAr 02.404404 ,, ... , 0 11/16/1999 16:57 13108316545 0 fr PAGE 02 6.inget"ANL,i Lbo- re-A-13- tvik.Attf-U4:,0 fad42,42.4et ks".4.46._ 4.4_Apox,s, Alert FeRvi :itifiL ; s 1Vvia d 4a) 41.4A442716(4b ..,t"�' ors. 1 r v'1 uaL., 'ate` eater w' �.e. 41=+-.3 :�'--ir`d..Q.-19SAYS rtfu.L. L.iNV1 V-41-WIPAVAIAL I Eds-€.4-te;e441.. 'Dv:, L042— 'fir • - W 3 / - 8's - Fi ge-f-A•-aela • MARILYN MALMUTH 4 01.1TRIUIiK ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 ,PRolor;,,,,Py;o3n) '4.6.‘\r-)9jAfj ?i L umiv CZo cam-. 1 it *r66Act>a•ini Iqq .Q.00\r_S (35-1POZAI lkot. (wkev-Lbu.) \Mk_ b 9‘4:11l Oa. ..Mexu-n4 QM-0-1‘,SAM InCl-dXS co a-e-,Qc6->k,P1`t!O Qc44›..1.v-As to-) TE@EIWE'D\ NOV I J 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS • MEmo QC), NV9 kA LLS VW, COSINCMS(ar3 CZAL>IT4 - -it tar,. . "Rt1 __GReCPRAG .(1133nztic;9_. Ass ty?uvo-,kireNle,. ock.Qtata,__ 3/0.M...171NAL.2.11n.. • • • • • A...LW:Vt. . Qi5taxcisy... . . . q.0 GctibIntrYs 1 ea:_ailtokomg, . Qoph) tmot.V._ Awsbn_ _WO t,52_ • b P- MLA* jj e '(">‘•-01 Q`44 N-11)— uitvAet 00.\..tmutt Je4 Aoact-t-eNa_aw_ool gnkl-tcik - olis_Lqg -- --- ` - ^^ _ . A. / • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 October 14, 1999 Mrs. Malmuth No. 4 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, California .d OCT 1 41999 CITY OF ROLLING F#LLS Fay Regarding: No. 16 Eastfield Drive Gregorio Residence Dear Mrs. Malmuth, As we discussed on last Tuesday evening after the Planning Commission field trip, I have revised the Gregorio tennis court and guest house design as follows: Tennis court is now a regulation size tennis court. Fences at tennis court shall not exceed 6 feet in height (noted on plans). Fences shall be free of any wind screening materials (noted on plans). Tennis court playing surface has been lowered in elevation by 3 feet 6 inches, thus, lowering the top of the fence by thesame amount (3 feet 6 inches). Guest house has been lowered in elevation by 1 feet 6 inches, thus lowering the roof the same. Enclosed please find the revised site plan. I have highlighted the areas mentioned above. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (310) 373-8077. I thank you for your input. I feel the revised design addresses all your concerns. Sincerely, Criss Gunderson 'cc: Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio Rolling Hills Planning Commission Lola Ungar, Planning Director • • City ofieolling _WA NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 599 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house and requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 599 to be at 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Greaorio. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new guest house and new: sports court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. . . Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in- the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. (CEOA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The Citv of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rolling Hills. CA 90274. Date: September 1, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planning(D'(rector GD Printed on Recycled Paper. • Cu, 0/ Rolling Jdff, APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS:.. LOCATION OF PROJECT:. ASSESSOR'S Book, • Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX 1 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 599 • 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 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed 800 square foot . guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot proposed sports court that will require grading at an existing single-family residence, and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68.B-EF) 7567-002-030 Residential Agricultural -Suburban -1 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre No change. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre 1.98 acres Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). x Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 No x N/A I-1 Printed an Recycled Paper, a • a 1M Aar !• B Adm. 4 2R.. 4 • s •�•,. AS?: le 22•A 22-4 : ' ' n NL Wee / t :•Sf_ •► .', \ \ \ •fay is . r, ,nf•s 45. — r frr.k \ /• • \\ to 4.401 A'' tf ••••k. \ ttl an. / . e•I4 / 441. I ;-PR/so- '-� }I �. •nw v a �\ 1. C•� .,,o.�,1"• •. t \`•.r p // N. „•z-. �\./ - _ a \ o ; •••0Ar 3/ •ir e.Ar r t° 56 I,A\ ✓RI4Av / D.R.; ISO AF1' M 55 ' . 1.A,/A. ,a K. r. L=—r t10At 55 .n / 46 r.•f,A< 1r • 1p ^� y A.nraJ tiij r• P Au.• k .e1.111111.11) .i / 1 � sca.k • \/' �l• . • cs ' \ \.�\ • �-r 2 �\ • AO! Ar `/ Nd . ,4 `C :.off« .A:.e• Of AO 0001 • T— r I t- TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS wp / y °/5 (* tr. r t 360418 L = — /� J r.,14• Ak $ ON Aa * r.fY ▪ At •.r+f •e 1.a.f Ac 'ICHBJTGJ7F11ELD2 I cssa•/r/,i r••••• IP 3 50-A / rlfl ee air 1, •yam J � J \ f %era \ / „lar..Y. �' s A 'r'i7ay /`" Z6 ' !O I• \ aet !WW1/ i 1� / j/ ems\ efe•A.. 1 I ..'USIA- 11 /j4 / y�..� 1 , . � R,75Ae //Rat/A/ - Acm A•..•_ i_ } .+; ~.`tAiRsa.0e1 i `y �.\ \./ arra . 35 \\\20 \ Z/Jd•h\\\ rK , ` 7 /p/_\`4• s / / Nt A. �.9s va f / 90 I,97 1 t,A�\ J 5' .- �\ �� `// t4erAel/•ae•we \ . \ 1e /OS , 1 ✓•- yp/07 \\\UV:Ae: )` _ - r \ A 1 /08, \ /JC.+A1 \ �' )/ram ` 115 y� ., =-. / 1/2 \ 119 A•r04 -1 \ /1I j! 14 // • ' -•i-_ _-^ ••aSAe :,1,.. _ --- - 1 • __ • /14 4y t OJ,tAE \ 52_ vG 1644/4 .%'i y 47 • • V r / o \ I,I R.7L7Ae Aa �241,As II t /SIS& a dt)JAe / .r ' •a •M1 O tri•.1. • 7 \ l l7r Aa\ 6 �\ \ .�•e �. .+d.f*.9e,. b oaw.1 % '•••• City of Roiling Hfi1TL �.S0/57 riw l cac•I = • //3 t.KU. , • //7 /ata4• •- /Id \\ A•t•A.. ,,' VICINITY MAP MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH GREGORIO 16 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 ,-a 1 -�ese��3t 1 Qdd7 i• • .PS.% \ . .fb•9� /• \ 4 Y' D r 1 7, tC \ r u. e ' -3re-r 79 /ss M Ae\ r I 74 / ...:azAc • • .\ .175 . 3 A. •, 5. • A.•. 1' . s n.� di f•/I AY. tgsw • E•1rbe0 d .1 a44544$' 41 f —fJ • .e A • • -p f JN1 We. *A•.• t All 4 wA• OAt er•s••5f •w••• b rs� .odP Q6 C wtiy -PR-"1 r u 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 d- /sa CASE NO. •\ 57 LJ N7Ae. .tJ1lAh •, I ,je/A: 83 1H4 Ae \,1 • „ ZONING CASE NO. 599 r• fA SITE • II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes K No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) 'A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 800 square foot guest house and a new 50' x 106' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-2 • B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 1.98 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage, swimming pool and service yard on the upper building pad and a proposed lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas. being heavily wooded. The same native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. • D. Is the proposed project consistent with::: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan E. Yes No N/A x x _ x x _ Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan _ Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-3 Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' ,or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable: standards,`.and :lb) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: September 1, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 LOLA M. UNG R, PLANNING DIRECTOR ($ignature] V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 I-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on -project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers. must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, Tess than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than • significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D): In this case, a brief .discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 I-6 Gr • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, • lead. agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by. the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ O 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air auality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • e) Create objectionable odors, affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 ❑ 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 0 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-8 0 0 ® 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of. Toss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-9 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IEI ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® 0 0 • • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous .: or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing, or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of. hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to: Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-10 CI El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ El • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 m El 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 1311 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ mi 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or. generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the • local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-12 CI ❑ 0 ❑rffl 0 El 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑FED • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental, impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-13 CBI ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 o ❑ ❑ un o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Egi o ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 1I 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ • • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?. • . ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or. programs ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 ❑ 0 ❑ INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-14 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ O ®rEi ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste dikpubal g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-15 O D ® ❑ 0 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 ❑ I1 ❑.... 0 0 ❑ 0 0 IXI • The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item 1. AESTHETICS. a-c. The guest house is required to be screened with landscaping so that the structure is obscured from neighboring properties. The sports court is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited in the City of Rolling Hills and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen . (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed guest house and sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 'square foot corral for the lot, areas -of: stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days-:priorio the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff : suggests that the • applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic .grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning -Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a guest house and sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitiaation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices duringconstruction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited size and nature of the project proposed, this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the I-16 • • retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be Tess than significant. The guest house and sports court proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May 1986, is listed by the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California Gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of endangered species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed 800 square foot guest house and 5,111 square foot sports court on 1.98 acres will be Tess than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains,. minimum ,grading prior to construction, may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading .or. development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the guest house and sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this guest house and sports court project, is underlain by expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any dis•Iacement and recompaction of the soil I-17 will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a guest house and sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills. Community Association. The effect of the construction of a guest house, sports court and screening, is expected to be Tess than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a.; .. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully: regulated, by .the. City's .Buildings & Construction: Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and, the ._Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a guesthouse and .sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce 'water. absorption by the placement . of the guest house and sports court, . the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed and permitted by the General .Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. f. Future development of an 800 square foot guest house and a 5,111 square foot sports court on a 1.98 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. No major floodplains exist in the City,, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed guest house and sports court will require a cut of 325 cubic yards and a fill of 325 cubic yards. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be Tess than significant. I-18 Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air ' quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a guest house and sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout projectdevelopment. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation. Measures G. During construction, the property . owners:: shall .be required to schedule 'and, regulateconstruction 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 ispermitted so ..asriot to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling. Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed guest house and sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 1.98 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 • • Mitiaation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shalt take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed guest house and sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The guest house and sports court will be required to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a guest house and sports court will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. L. The property' owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage" facilities. M. The ..property, ; owners shall 'be required to • `conform with .the Regional Water Quality, Control 'Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices, (BMP's):related tosolid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The guest house and sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 1-20 DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • City ./ leoffin • 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 Agenda Item No.: 6.A. Mtg. Date: 2/14/2000 FEBRUARY 14, 2000 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 599: An appeal of the following Planning Commission approved requests: (1) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (2) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, (3) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, (4) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (5) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (6) Site Plan Review for the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio, 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF) BACKGROUND A. The City Council viewed a silhouette of the proposed project at the site on Wednesday, February 9, 2000. B. The City Council took Zoning Case No. 599 under their jurisdiction at their regular meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the public hearing has been continued for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. C. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-19 that is attached on December 21,1999 at their regular meeting. The vote was 4-0. Commissioner Margeta was absent. Letters are attached from Mr. and Mrs. Ken Leeuwenburgh, 12 Eastfield Drive, and Mrs. Marilyn Malmuth, 4 Outrider Road. D. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and tennis court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the public hearing process following the field trip, a regulation -sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed by the applicants to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the Zoning Case No. 599 Page 1 L'J Printed on Recycled Paper. previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. 1. The Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage for the project is required because the structural lot coverage proposed is 15,282 square feet or 22.8% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). 2. The Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage for the project is required because the total lot coverage proposed is 25,322 square feet or 37.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3. The Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area for the project is required because the maximum disturbed area proposed is 27,539 square feet or 41.1% of the net lot (40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). • The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone in that "both the narrowness of the property as well as the fact that the property has 2 streets (roadway easements) bordering the western and northwestern sides of the property, so that the resultant net lot area is small for a nearly 2-acre parcel (1.98 acres). Thus, coverage figures are misleading." (Net area of a lot excludes the entire area within a roadway easement plus the area within 10 feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement). • In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "The spirit of the coverage and disturbance limitation are respected in that the openness of the site will be consistent with other neighboring properties. Also, the site has minimal topographical features yielding a greater perceived open area." The applicants are also requesting the following: 4. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 800 square foot guest house to be located at a lower portion of the lot, 165 feet east of the existing residence. 5. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court 4 feet east of the guest house. The tennis court will be 60 feet wide by 120 feet long. A 3-foot high, retaining wall that is 169 feet long will separate the guest house from the tennis court. The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Commissioners discussed conditions related to lowering the height of the proposed perimeter fence to 6 feet and prohibiting the use of windblocking slats in the proposed fence. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 2 • • J• 6. Site Plan Review for the guest house, tennis court and grading at the property site. • The proposed project as presented conforms with Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) (Guest House) and 17.16.210(A)(7) (Recreation court) of the Zoning Code excevt that the Project exceeds certain lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage, maximum 35% total lot coverage, and 40% maximum disturbed area (Requirements attached). . E. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage was constructed in 1970 following the demolition of the previous dwelling unit. The pool was constructed in 1963, additions and remodeling took place in 1985, and there was a spa addition and pool remodel in 1993. An approved 75 square foot addition and remodel is currently taking place at the residence. F. Grading for the tennis court will require 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total cut will be 435 cubic yards and the total fill will be 435 cubic yards. The graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 10,000 square feet (10,000 square feet maximum). G. Coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad is 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, the coverage on the 8,014 square foot guest house and tennis court pad is 7,800 square feet or 97.3%, and the coverage on the future 1,265 square foot stable and corral building pad is 450 square feet or 35%. Total building pad coverage will be 47.7%. (Planning Commission guideline is 30%). H. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the western portion of the lot off Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road where there is a circular driveway. Access to the guest house and tennis court will be from the easement at the southwest. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the eastern portion of lot. Access to the stable is available from Eastfield Drive along the southern easement. The slope access varies from 2 to 3% near the residence to 17% at the future stable and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: 1. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed tennis court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 3 f • • 3. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. 4. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. 5. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 6. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 7. 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. 8. The tennis court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. 9. The tennis court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. 10. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. 11. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. 12. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. 13. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans and take public testimony. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 4 r • • FtIaNCE REQUIREL)FI.NC?ING A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 5 • • E PLAN-AE RAS-1 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for any grading requiring a grading permit; any new building structure (except barn/stable w/out grading; or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) GRADING Requires balanced cut and fill No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage I Swim Pool I Service Yd. Total 10.5% 25.5% N/A 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 7,032 sq.ft. DISTURBED AREA 25.5% (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and buildinc pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGEI 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. GUEST HOUSE & TENNIS COURT PAD N/A COVERAGE STABLE & CORRAL BUILDING PAD TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL). STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Zoning Case No. 599 Page 6 N/A 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. None N/A Existing circular driveway at western portion of lot at the corner of Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road. N/A N/A No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage Swim Pool Service Yd. Guest Hse. Sports Ct. Stable Total 20% 34.9% 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 5,111 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 13,393 sq.ft. 325 cu. yds cut soil 325 cu. yds fill soil 39.2% 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 76% of 7,760 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 42.1% of 31,595 sq.ft. pads 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad. Proposed accessway from the easement at the southwest with a slope access of 2%-3% near the residence and up to 17% at the future stable that will not be greater than 25%. No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review , tPROPO§it No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage Swim Pool Service Yd. Guest Hse. Tennis Ct. Stable Total 22.8% 37.8% 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 7,000 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 15,282 sq.ft. 435 cu. yds cut soil/435 cu. yds fill soil (Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/ 410 cu. yds fill soil) (Guest House: 125 cu.yds cut soil 25 cu. yds fill soil) 41.1% 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 97.3% of 8,014 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 47.7% of 31,849 sq.ft. pads Same Same No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review • a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guest house or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guest house is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements i. Preliminary landscaping required Zoning Case No. 599 Page 7 Required condition. 800 sq.ft. proposed. Required condition. Required condition. Over 200 feet from paved parking. Required condition. Required condition. Required condition. Required condition. • • v a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area. b. Prohibited in front yard. c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements. d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior. e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage). f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses. g. Requires balanced cut and fill not to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. j. Requires City/County approved drainage system. k. Requires screening on all four sides. I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with. viewscape of surrounding properties or easements. m. Prohibits court lighting. n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 8 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral at lower eastern portion of the property. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Does not conform with lot coverage limitations. Structural lot coverage proposed is 22.8% and total lot coverage proposed is 37.8% Existing grade is 6.52:1. Existing slope does not exceed a 2:1 grade. Proposed cut and fill will be 720 cubic yards for the tennis court. Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/410 cu. yds fill soil Guest House:125 cu.yds cut soiV25 cu. yds fill soil Total balanced 435 cu. yds cut soil/435 cu. yds fill soil for entire project. Graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 8,014 sq.ft. and less than 10,000 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FERMI]. i to DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr., ' and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio with respect to real property located at 16 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 68-B-EF) requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit .the construction of a 5,111 square foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to . permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and tennis court 'that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the hearing process, a.regulation-sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to . exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on September 21, 1999, October 19, 1999 and November 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on October 12, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. The following concerns were expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views. • • Section 3. On September 1, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A Negative Declaration was prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on November 6, 1999. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Commission finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. 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(A)(1) is required because it states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 22.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 structural lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and two bordering roadways exist at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 2 OF 14 standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 22.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit coverage by structures of 22.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 7. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (A)(2) is required because it states that coverage by structures and all other impervious surfaces, known as total lot coverage, shall not be more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total lot coverage will be 37.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two. bordering roadways at. the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 37.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 3 OF 14 • Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit total lot coverage of 37.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 9. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total disturbance will be 41.1% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two bordering roadways at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Disturbed area on the site will be 41.1% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit a disturbed area of 41.1%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 11. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval for a guest house under certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot guest house at the central portion of the lot. 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 construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 4 OF 14 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 guest house 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 guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed at the central portion of the lot and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house 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 guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 1.98 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape, and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the guest house equals the 800 square foot maximum .permitted and the guest house does not encroach into any setback' areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with theportions 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot guest house in accordance with the development plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 599 subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. Section 13. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a tennis court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct a 7,000 square foot tennis court east of the guest house. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 5 OF 14 • • A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the tennis court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed tennis court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The projectis harmonious in scale and mass with the site, thenatural terrain, and surrounding residences because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the communityand is- located on a 1.98 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape : and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all : applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed a maximum graded area of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 599 for a proposed 7,000 square foot tennis court, as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 6 OF 14 Section 15. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 66,967 square feet. Theproposed residence (5,264 sq.ft.), garage (787 sq.ft.), swimming pool (881 sq.ft.), guest house (800 sq.ft.), tennis court (7,000 sq.ft.), service yard (100 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 15,282 square feet. which constitutes 22.8% of the lot though not within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement was : approved by Variance in Section 6. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 25,322 square feet which'. equals 37.8% of the lot, though not within .the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement was approved by Variance in Section. 8. 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 nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot which has a gentle slope have been considered, and the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, a 3-foot high, 169-foot retaining wall, and a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, although the lot coverage maximum will be exceeded, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this long, RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 7 OF 14 411 • narrow gently sloping lot. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it 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. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. Although the proposed structures are located in the rear yard, they will not effect a change to the existing residence. The development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. The structures proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development plan follows : natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue at the east • side (rear) of this lot. G. 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. H. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize an existing driveway at the southwestern portion of the property off Eastfield Drive for access. I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with the incorporation of mitigation measures to the project that are incorporated within this Resolution. Section 16. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 599 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this Resolution. Section 17. The Variances regarding lot coverages approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10, the Conditional Use Permits regarding the 800 square foot guest house and 7,000 tennis court approved in Section 12 and 14, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 16 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 8 OF 14 A. The Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Plan Review 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) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site . plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated October 19, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located,_ shall contain an area of sufficient, size to also provide an area meetingall standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review and recreation court limitations. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15,282 square feet or 22.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 6. G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 25,322 square feet or 37.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 8. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 27,539 square feet or 41.1% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 10. I. Residential building pad coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, coverage on the 7,800 square foot guest house and tennis court pad shall not exceed 8,014 square feet or 97.3%, coverage on the 1,265 square foot stable and corral pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 35%.and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 47.7%. J. The guest house shall not exceed 800 square feet and the surface of the tennis court shall not exceed 7,000 square feet in area. The location of the guest RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 9 OF 14 • • house and tennis court shall be as depicted on the Development Plan dated October 19,1999 and marked Exhibit A. K. Balanced cut and fill for the tennis court shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not exceed 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total grading shall be balanced for a total cut of 435 cubic yards and a total fill of 435 cubic yards and arty soil preparation for the guest house and tennis court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. The 169 foot long retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 3 feet in height. O. The floor area of the guest house shall not exceed 800square feet. P. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the guest house. Q. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the guest house. R. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in arty six month period. S. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. T. Tennis court lighting shall not be permitted. U. The tennis court shall be screened with 6 foot high fencing on all four sides. V . The tennis court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry and shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Landscape screening shall not include Eucalyptus or Pine trees. W . Noise from tennis court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 10 OF 14 X. The loft area of the stable shall have no glazed windows. Y. 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. Z. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A ; bond in the amount of the cost, estimate of the implementation of the ; landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines ..that the landscaping . was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. AA. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the tennis court. AB. 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. AC. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AD. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the guest house and RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 11 OF 14 • • tennis court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the rear of the lot at the east. AF. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AG. During construction, in the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Al. 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 : hot to interfere with the quiet residential' :environment of the City of Rolling Hill's. • AJ. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from " any site irrigation systems as well as tennis court runoff, and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the rear or east of the lot. AK. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AL. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AM. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. AN. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 12 OF 14 AO. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AP. 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. AQ. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AR. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. AS. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit:. of Acceptance of all conditions of ` these Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals; pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approvalshall not be. effective. AT. All conditions of these Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY QPIDEC 'i :1 2; 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Y. k 4,0%) MARILY KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 13 OF 14 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIvu i Ito STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERM i i rd.) DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 21,1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. None. Commissioner Margeta. None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK . k RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 14 OF 14 01/10/2000 17:23 13108318545 1111 PAGE 01 DAK.Taispwwkwi 1 b s Zs** 1;as Re 1144.1 �I; �. &AI desurpea: Vic. . ileAt.,edt- 414 ...ik 14.0;siolisik date R•fabhdlCsik tba I.Nwivi..OWN. /vb.gry, it. PmsM C/rar,. Irepook, 9 LealiM0.4014111% : .E*wML bb re, t .io'fl»V4. fM 1'o ts/- s'r!ir— 11/16/1999 ::6:57 13108319545 0 PAGE 01 • • 20 n;a/ &Arab, '01 %! Ah WV! 6000 tnr,.v+ • $S so/�J►J {�l e.e�.s•r.. h i 4 e.. CO LW 02ppe -, 4 • . 1 N!'l # -Cop Get.. `TerniA, �i V aA.i Vi$ ti y` s4c� c,-L tee .J 'Me. c. 0448,_ kei. et« i-' ICAO's -r 01. t Q -- e ! Qom. ti-4940 he. t brt p 4LO b 11 sso % re.... e.• e3- le ce.r'O-Pf40494 7i 19 ,,. - 1 ca. e}. o rr Tkit.) 4244if. ...s,.._ d-Af , as-44.1d Q11 e-7•4a.,. 40.14.44. des.- _411 v4e..l.ctof,vt rt _ • U-....4. ,. 640-wpAgt.4. aa.lo• /1 41) Li•:1 V•CLIVUI•••1014 04.1/1 4-S CA-te *Cts.ely 144 o- es s e#44.9.4.. ta.t cv al. to 4 p v+t-1, c 1 b kJ. C.,, o.i • • PAGE 02 11/16/1999 16:57 13108318545 • pie 2.- 6-insTAANL, k&La 411cLAPftt32U evr-P &WU.' .c,c.+110146$ li)vbitulat.a b3a_kNeJJA. lrrvILAA-1 raw- Ite-J lou-lah- .a42-10 Mt) ka-4.44a-- FgavilCdAL ; s 62.4040 e4447 ltvliaLej-44144 ei.s41:14„, titc, ; erv-8-7 -res CAAPO -SS Art 8 P.O.AAr2A.Or CL4A41. 414.3 t. ke_4A, 1...afb./...d lees* (sta...44-r-03 4- jai) ca-if tp- I 1-.4_ 4e*- 4161.(4. Ets.q.444.1. •Dv:. sts- VS Fh)t 3ib-' • • MARILYN M A T. M U' I' H 4 (UJTR1DIiR ROAD RC 1.I.ING HII.tS, CALIFORNIA 90274 --es-e„, GI" RoUtor;rAl •kilk)() 11=1, .-\OtL - reaCkft --a re-6\ \‘):it -Raih)( _ c5ileS)- usAjzsa ---eckit .9 Ali lit keit -.1-1--"re-lt. e9n;c")u-tet., O .tstA t n ,c5. - ° 9 Qnd .P-1\64'r41(".n`s''‘nj"'/(33`(\c:° _9 (t6Jel co)uct-cit& b-tsui‘j qc),/ rmIts D.a (*rtt e.6Kr\cvar-O-d - r."9\k6 OW; OLVdAal.(i tccif..L 1i a t20a teJSZ - 4Gta.5CC>Z,Z\L 41.176ibm `fur• 15e,A52.0411A) l5� IRRq NOVTE2E11WN 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Sy • MEmo trlo LLArkvg ‘-‘ tt_Ls C.---)LPtOcv.1\1(7 Comer\ smelt%) Mkriv-‘ — 4- Otri-R11)Gfra, tI:- TiAJ .€Qate‘ya..6e1,. 4t's 31,1/41w(3,••• • k,:ylegA0-,,kt imultr_Guri_ 46-• iicLL3/614....47Aea__Non tiO . -Q_Quo atz4...sxmZ _.Q.Nsgazt_ • • - RicAzes.o-s)__ exocLufaektocnQ. -(15 . at...t Ulm*/ -sf_tsvi\xylt. • Crlc 01 nvcack 10.-V uvrmiNft _ .weL. _ _ .A:. • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, Califomia TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 October 14, 1999 Mrs. Malmuth No. 4 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, California IAECEHEJ 0CT 1 41999 CITY OF ROLLING I-HLLS Ay Regarding: No. 16 Eastfield Drive Gregorio Residence Dear Mrs. Malmuth, As we discussed on last Tuesday evening after the Planning Commission field trip, I have revised the Gregorio tennis court and guest house design as follows: Tennis court is now a regulation size tennis court. Fences at tennis court shall not exceed 6 feet in height (noted on plans). Fences shall be free of any wind screening materials (noted on plans). Tennis court playing surface has been lowered in elevation by 3 feet 6 inches; thus, lowering the top of the fence by the same amount (3 feet 6 inches). Guest house has been lowered in elevation by 1 feet 6 inches, thus lowering the roof the same. Enclosed please find the revised site plan. I have highlighted the areas mentioned above. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (310) 373-8077. I thank you for your input. I feel the revised design addresses all your concerns. Sincerely, Criss Gunderson cc: Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio Rolling Hills Planning Commission Lola Ungar, Planning Director • el,, a/met • JAILINCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 599 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house and requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 599 to be at 16 Easffield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF). Rolling Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Greaorio. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new guest house and new sports court that will require- grading at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the . Califomia Environmental Quality , Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead. Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills, CA 90274. Date: September 1, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planning(D'irector Printed on Recycled Paper. APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: • ofielin9 APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 599 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 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot proposed sports court that will require grading at an existing single-family residence, and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF) 7567-002-030 Residential Agricultural -Suburban -1 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre No change. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre 1.98 acres Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No X N/A INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-1 Pririted on Recycled Paper: . • .6,/ A \ 1 K rrk ../ .. g . 23 .• ♦l 1 ( 4 r, t 11 N I r77A. \ 22•A • Wee - err ea \ .4sarR' \ • \ • e7 ..ns.4• 4�— A7 PR- /So- 1L r 'Jr Ar I I a JJ \} I • A / \' /6 ,d/✓At es .ro•,At �lP 4.3 \� .. . Q. -ill . �y o • ".. I I p �-. S4t-{. Pr • / yam. r,ar\\ _ . \� or ♦ .m•v /4 r `\ i4 A5 \/ ; t ^ 4 / ,, t\ \ .4R/fA. 1l \ �\ /aR.\`50AF } 4 tr.' 55 / 2.,M •• ..51/0. r,„nc Af. w.' � 7 _Js,c a.-.-- 4 ` I 6.s4* • r J4. -1 1 :44:ac.2r a 1 I 1 JO ! I AV I•NV", t c4 I 50-A a .} I \ 1 (revs / I I P r 53 \ AM` 52' �-/ r ( Ji7JA, y/ \ \ ad iiviaL L elm /" 52 _ \ mii Q; �i/ 1iN4 ) :/ a \ --- . a • /5o AT ! § \\ .......q' �...1-:' 6/ \. l_ a .' +.._ _1 ` rwA / 46 I ., _ t2 ______ t., 1 ' - sLud,..5.4% 1 /eiiO v A,,�i v.. ' lea JOa sera \ i4 .4,. M .,N \ N NpLL3 '", • v\ ir-Ar i 4toR At . I. J J O re k ..7qi. 1. f -a •\ \ / P7 '•/ `� • e'' A A • I- \\ . �\ 43 •i\t� \ Nate < .2\\ sr 67 . AIC • \ 7 a6' r.ktr i scow. 14 of motr / L r T--- 4 /7 z7, / /6 �.. • :6,e J4✓4.0e Ie/e lee ♦ `2 I \ row,* JI a - s I 0 a •I'17Je ..J/ y/ 4 `w I 24 L \ w\ [/ /� `. \ • I / \ Ia75A,, .r.,Ar.,, I i /62.• w r ' 1 /J.reA, :' 4ts'. I Z3 4• t r, J/ y /O/ v 16•% A•- ,- ' •.... 1/6Jq / '-\C•\ In. \\ CSC \ 11 \ 22.. 2 '\\`i't:' w/ \1JerA \ / \\\20 V. /AVAa v A t! AL., \\[es...\•\ /e N,44 e ' WA<\ J Y. , `\ ..e / /- e \ r /05 l� Ar 4 /06 8 ZOO?*a l • /•� \ /07 \\\$[s'Ae: \)\-- - 1 I 1067 At. \, //O 4.....\,.... ,r 17tce, . _ ! l09 1 ` .• 4tJO 11 14rbAt \ // sr] ro . 4 /- //6.O "..1"/ • //64.. ' p.77�Ar 4 4 9,t 0 we,s I City of Rotting Sas I a eek 171JA•. -N / //$ r.4,1.. i \ • / *revs \ \\ass: • 7\ • \ • \ 594 AJ•nAr4 1 0 /r7 11/ 7t•I J 147545. — 1 a7e_'"+= c 60 '- orao, •4331.k ; t� I _ 57 ,pat , •V . / .r. ar.k /// • i 74 496oi. 75 J. 3J Ar \ i \ \ 4 \ Jr Ar _. } /sea At t Ar NM I / a: 8y e66c7A, „ 78 / u,A. • \ .s- 1 LA A.. • E.IM. a £ihl,M ,l M Qi e/440•5e3 p I.r. d 1.J.p Ri/61l.tfi 2 * 444 Ae. Mar/ Or f4Y/4 WA, Qa u47,•/1r / sr. Ae is-1 e 7r. - `, Y S • Ry 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 TITLE VICINITY MAP CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 599 APPLICANT MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH GREGORIO ADDRESS 16 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 0 SITE • • II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes x No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is' a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of Califomia, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) . A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 800 square foot guest house and a new 50' x 106' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 • • B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 1.98 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage, swimming pool and service yard on the upper building pad and a proposed lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded. The same native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan E. Yes 'x • x x x Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan _ Solid Waste Generation Report _ Public Services/ Infrastructure Report INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-3 No N/A x _ Historical Report _ Archaeological Report Paleontological Study _ Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis _ Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report _ Hazardous Materials/ Waste • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: September 1, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 LOLA M. UNG R, PLANNING DIRECTOR (j$ignature] 1-4 • • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-5 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a Tess . than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a.brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 1-6 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? HI. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 110 ® • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 110 0 0 ® 0 1-7 • • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? • b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ ❑ 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 ❑ ❑ p the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ o ❑ 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 ❑ 0 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑LE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ [81 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-9 • e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ IE1 O 0 ❑ O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-10 • j) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 0 El El • • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XL NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI El IEI ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑tai 1-12 • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which, could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ OEl Fire protection? 0 0 0 Police protection? 0 ❑ 0 Schools? 0 0 0 El Parks? 0 0 0 El Other public facilities? 0 ❑ ❑ El XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.595 1-13 ❑ ❑ ❑ O ® 0 0 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standardestablished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ lI 0 ❑ t1 ❑ 0 ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ 0 ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ 0 ® 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-14 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 EEO ❑ ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ r3 0 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? • g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the. major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-15 0 Egl 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ cgi o ❑ ❑cm ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI • • The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item I. AESTHETICS. a-c. The guest house is required to be screened with landscaping so that the structure is obscured from neighboring properties. The sports court is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited in the City of Rolling Hills and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed guest house and sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a guest house and sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited size and nature of the project proposed, this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the I-16 • • retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. The guest house and sports court proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May 1986, is listed by the Federal Govemment as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local Califomia Gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of endangered species and on the Concemed list of the State, and in a recent census, pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Govemment. Target species for the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 800 square foot guest house and 5,111 square foot sports court on 1.98 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the guest house and sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this guest house and sports court project, is underlain by expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil I-17 • • will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a guest house and sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a guest house, sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling -Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a guest house and sports court, therefore, is expected to be Tess than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the guest house and sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. f. Future development of an 800 square foot guest house and a 5,111 square foot sports court on a 1.98 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j. No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed guest house and sports court will require a cut of 325 cubic yards and a fill of 325 cubic yards. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be Tess than significant. I-18 Mitigation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a guest house and sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact.. Mitiaation Measures G. 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 soas• not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed guest house and sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 1.98 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. C:s-DI I-19 1 Mitiaation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed guest house and sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The guest house and sports court will be required to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a guest house and sports court will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater, drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The guest house and sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • C1iy o/ ROM S JUL 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 Agenda Item No.: 3.A. Mtg. Date: 2/9/2000 FEBRUARY 9, 2000 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR ' ZONING CASE NO. 599: An appeal of the following Planning Commission approved requests: (1) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (2) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, (3) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, (4) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (5) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (6) Site Plan . Review ; for.. the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing singlefamily residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio, 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF) BACKGROUND A. The City Council viewed a silhouette of the proposed project at the site on Wednesday, February 9, 2000. B. The City Council took Zoning Case No. 599 under their jurisdiction at their regular meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, public hearing was opened on January 24, 2000. The public hearing was continued to this afternoon's field trip. C. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-19 that is attached on December 21,1999 at their regular meeting. The vote was 4-0. Commissioner Margeta was absent. Letters are attached from Mr. and Mrs. Ken Leeuwenburgh, 12 Eastfield Drive, and Mrs. Marilyn Malmuth, 4 Outrider Road. D. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and tennis court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the public hearing process following the field trip, a regulation -sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed by the applicants to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the Zoning Case No. 599 Page 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. 1. The Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage for the project is required because the structural lot coverage proposed is 15,282 square feet or 22.8% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). 2. The Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage for the project is required because the total lot coverage proposed is 25,322 square feet or 37.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3. The Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area for the project is required because the maximum disturbed area proposed is 27,539 square feet or 41.1% of the net lot (40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). • The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to otherproperty in the same vicinity and zone in that "both' the narrowness of the property as' wellaas the fact that the property or hw stern sides of the property, that the resultant net lot t the westernmaa ro ert has2. streets (roadwayeasements)borderingand lot area is small for a nearly 2-acre parcel (1.98 acres). Thus, coveragefigures are ;misleading." (Net area of a lot excludes the entire area within a roadwayeasement plusthe area within 10 feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement): ♦ In describing how such` change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in thevicinity and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "The spirit of the coverage and disturbance limitation are respected in that the openness of the site will be consistent with other neighboring properties. Also, the site has minimal topographical features yielding a greater perceived open area." The applicants are also requesting the following: 4. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 800 square foot guest house to be located at a lower portion of the lot, 165 feet east of the existing residence. 5. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court 4 feet east of the guest house. The tennis court will be 60 feet wide by 120 feet long. A 3-foot high, retaining wall that is 169 feet long will separate the guest house from the tennis court. The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Commissioners discussed conditions related to lowering the height of the proposed perimeter fence to 6 feet and prohibiting the use of windblocking slats in the proposed fence. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 2 l�J 6. Site Plan Review for the guest house, tennis court and grading at the property site. • The proposed project as presented conforms with Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) (Guest House) and 17.16.210(A)(7) (Recreation court) of the Zoning Code except that the project exceeds certain lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage, maximum 35% total lot coverage, and 40% maximum disturbed area (Requirements attached). E. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage was constructed in 1970 following the demolition of the previous dwelling unit. The pool was constructed in 1963, additions and remodeling took place in 1985, and there was a spa addition and pool remodel in 1993. An approved 75 square foot addition and remodel is currently taking place at the residence. F. Grading for the tennis court will require 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total cut will be 435 cubic yards and the total fill will be 435 cubic yards. The graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 10,000 square feet (10,000 square feet maximum). Coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad is 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, the coverage on the 8,014 square foot guest house and tennis court pad is 7,800 square feet or 97.3%, and the coverage on the future 1,265 square foot stable and corral building pad is 450 square feet" or 35%. Total building, pad coverage will be 47.7%: (Planning Commission guideline is 30%). Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at ;the western portion of the lot off Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road where there is a circular driveway. Access to the guest house and tennis court will be from the easement at the southwest. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the eastern portion of lot. Access to the stable is available from Eastfield Drive along the southern easement. The slope access varies from 2 to 3% near the residence to 17% at the future stable and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are:. 1. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed tennis court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. J• 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 3 3. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. 4. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. 5. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 6. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 7. 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... . 8. :;The tennis court shall be screened with 'fencing on all four sides. The tennis court shall also be screened with native'drought-resistant vegetation such as Toyon and.. Lemonadeberry on all four sides;; 10. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. 11. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. 12. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. 13. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans and take public testimony. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 4 A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria, for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the 'General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 5 REVI RAS-1 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for any grading requiring a grading permit; any new building structure (except barn/stable w/out grading; or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more'than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) GRADING Requires balanced cut and fill No encroachments into setbacks. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. Total 10.5% 25.5% 7,032 sq.ft. No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage Swim Pool Service Yd. Guest Hse. Sports Ct. Stable Total 20% 34.9% No encroachments into setbacks. 5,264 sq.ft. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. Guest Hse. 800 sq.ft. 5,111 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 7,000 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. 13,393 sq.ft. Total I 15,282 sq.ft. 22.8% N/A 325 cu. yds cut soil 325 cu. yds fill soil DISTURBED AREA 25.5% (40% maximum; any graded building 'pad area; any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and buildinc pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). 'RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 30.7% of 22,570 sq:ft. GUEST HOUSE & TENNIS COURT PAD N/A COVERAGE STABLE & CORRAL BUILDING PAD TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRALI STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Zoning Case No. 599 Page 6 N/A 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. None N/A Existing circular driveway at western portion of lot at the corner of Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road. N/A N/A 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft: 76% of 7,760 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 42.1% of 31,595 sq.ft. pads 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad. Proposed accessway from the easement at the southwest with a slope access of 2%-3% near the residence and up to 17% at the future stable that will not be greater than 25%. No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review 37.8% 435 cu. yds cut soiV435 cu. yds fill soil (Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soiV 410 cu. yds fill soil) (Guest House: 125 cu.yds cut soil 25 cu. yds fill soil) 41.1% • 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 97.3% of 8,014 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 47.7% of 31,849 sq.ft. pads Same Same No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review • f. 0)*•FIQU$5 fiEOUIR5Mt T a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house Required condition. b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area 800 sq.ft. proposed. c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted Required condition. d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guest house or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period Required condition. Over 200 feet from paved parking. Required condition. g. Renting of guest house is prohibited Required condition. h. Comply with all requirements Required condition. i. Preliminary landscaping required Required condition. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 7 a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area. b. Prohibited in front yard. c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements. d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior. e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage). f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses. g. Requires balanced cut and fill no to exceed 750 cubic yards. h.Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square. 'I feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. j. Requires City/County approved drainage system: k. Requires screening en all four sides. I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements. m. Prohibits court lighting. n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 8 Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral at lower eastern portion of the property. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Does not conform with lot coverage limitations. Structural lot coverage proposed is 22.8% and total lot coverage proposed is 37.8% Existing grade is 6.52:1. Existing slope does not exceed a 2:1 grade. Proposed cut and fill will be 720 cubic yards for the tennis court. Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/410 cu. yds fill soil Guest House:125 cu.yds cut soiV25 cu. yds fill soil Total balanced 435 cu. yds cut soil/435 cu. yds fill soil for entire project. Graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 8,014 sq.ft. and less than 10,000 sq.ft. Planning. Commission will review Required condition Required.condition' Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERivui i Y hu STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIvu i t ho DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS. FOLLOWS: Section 1. - Applications were duly filed by Mr.: and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio with respect to:real property located at 16 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 68-B-EF) requesting a. Conditional Use Permit to .permit-theTonstruction of an 800 square foot: guest house; requesting a Conditional . Use Permit. to permit . the construction . of °a 5,111 square, foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining 'wall, and tennis court that will require grading at an existing single: family residence. During the hearing process, a regulation -sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to . exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on September 21, 1999, October 19, 1999 and November 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on October 12, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first lass mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. The following concerns were expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners: Zoning Code requirements for recreation courts and site specific issues pertaining to landscaping and views. Section 3. On September 1, 1999, Planning staff prepared an Initial Study for the project. The Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. A Negative Declaration was prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on November 6, 1999. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it 'represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Commission finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated therein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through ..17.38.050 . 'of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code . permit approval of' as --:Variance.. from the ,standards and requirements of . the Zoning Ordinance, 1 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 parcelof, property to the same extent enjoyed by similar: properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.070(A)(1) is required because it states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 22.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 structural lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and two bordering roadways exist at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 2 OF 14 • standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 22.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit coverage by structures of 22.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 7. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (A)(2) is required because it states that coverage by structures and all other impervious surfaces, known as total lot coverage, shall not be more than 35 percent of .the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total lot coverage will be 37.8% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 otherproperty . or . class of use in the same .:zone. <: The :.Variance for the total lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two bordering roadways at, the western and northwestern sides of the property . that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration,together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. 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. Development on the site will be 37.8% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 3 OF 14 • Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit total lot coverage of 37.8%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 9. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total disturbance will be 41.1% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, 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 lot is relatively long and narrow and there are two bordering roadways at the western and northwestern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the 'City's.developtent standards result in more severe restrictions on:: the,: development :of ° the subject property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. , ;: 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. Disturbed area on the site will be 41.1% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 599 to permit a disturbed area of 41.1%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17. Section 11. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval for a guest house under certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot guest house at the central portion of the lot. 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 construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 4 OF 14 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 guest house 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 guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be constructed at the central portion of the lot and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house 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 guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 1.98 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable developmentstandards of the zone district because, the 800 square foot size of the guest house equals the 800 square foot maximum -permitted and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. " The proposed conditional use is consistentwith::ahe 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 800 square foot guest house in accordance with the development plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 599 subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. Section 13. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of a tennis court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct a 7,000 square foot tennis court east of the guest house. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 5 OF 14 A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the tennis court would be located in an area on the property that is on a second pad below the residential building pad. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed tennis court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, . will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding .property owners. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass 'with :the site, the natural terrain, and: surrounding residences because ,the tennis :court: will comply withthe low profile residential development pattern of: the, community. and is located on a 1.98 acre .parcel ;'of . property that is adequate in size,. :shape, .and topography : to accommodate :such use.:,; :.. ;:. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all .. applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed a maximum graded area of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards as the applicants propose approved drainage. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related 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 a stable structure and adjacent corral will be located at the eastern -most portion of the lot. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 599 for a proposed 7,000 square foot tennis court, as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 6 01114 Section 15. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 66,967 square feet. The proposed residence (5,264 sq.ft.), garage (787 sq.ft.), swimming pool (881 sq.ft.), guest house (800 sq.ft.), tennis court (7,000 sq.ft.), service yard (100 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.)will ,. have 15,282 square feet which constitutes 22.8% of the lot though not . within . the maziinum 20% structural lot coverage requirement was approved by Variance: in Section 6. The .total lot • coverage including paved areas and driveway will be.25,322`square feet which . equals 37.8% of the ": lot, though not within the 35% maximum' °overall . lot coverage requirement was approved by Variance in Section. 8., :,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 nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot which has a gentle slope have been considered, and the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, a 3-foot high, 169-foot retaining wall, and a 7,000 square foot tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the owners and their children, 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, although the lot coverage maximum will be exceeded, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this long, RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 7 OF 14 narrow gently sloping lot. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible.. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it 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. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. Although the proposed structures are located in the rear yard, they will not effect a change to the existing residence. The development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. The structures proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses : will continue at the east side (rear) of this lot. G. - 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 ofthe community, . and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. H. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental' to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize an existing driveway at the southwestern portion of the property off Eastfield Drive for access. I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with the incorporation of mitigation measures to the project that are incorporated within this Resolution. Section 16. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 599 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated October 19, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this Resolution. Section 17. The Variances regarding lot coverages approved in Sections 6, 8, and 10, the Conditional Use Permits regarding the 800 square foot guest house and 7,000 tennis court approved in Section 12 and 14, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 16 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 8 OF 14 a • A. The Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Site Plan Review 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) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances, Conditional Use Permits and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. ..The lot: shall be developed and maintained : in... substantial conformance with the . site, plan . on file marked Exhibit A and dated. October 19, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The, property: on which the project is located:. ,shall;,; contain . an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral. with vehicular. access .thereto in conformance with; site plan review and recreation court limitations. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15,282 square feet or 22.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 6. G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 25,322 square feet or 37.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 8. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 27,539 square feet or 41.1% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 10. I. Residential building pad coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, coverage on the 7,800 square foot guest house and tennis court pad shall not exceed 8,014 square feet or 97.3%, coverage on the 1,265 square foot stable and corral pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 35%.and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 47.7%. J. The guest house shall not exceed 800 square feet and the surface of the tennis court shall not exceed 7,000 square feet in area. The location of the guest RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 9 OF 14 house and tennis court shall be as depicted on the Development Plan dated October 19,1999 and marked Exhibit A. K. Balanced cut and fill for the tennis court shall not exceed 750 cubic yards in accordance with grading limitations. L. The prepared or graded area shall not exceed 10,000 square feet in accordance with grading limitations. M. Grading shall not exceed 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total grading shall be balanced for a total cut of 435 cubic yards and a total fill of 435 cubic yards and any soil preparation for the guest house and tennis court shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. N. The 169 foot long retaining walls incorporated intothe project shall not exceed 3 feet in height. O. - The floor area of .the guest house shall not exceed ,,800, square, feet. P. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided withm the guest house. Q. No vehicular' access or pavedparking area shall be `developed :within ,50 'feet of the guest house: R. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed o n the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guest of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than 30 days in any six month period. S. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. T. Tennis court lighting shall not be permitted. U. The tennis court shall be screened with 6 foot high fencing on all four sides. V. The tennis court shall be screened on all four sides with drought - resistant mature trees and shrubs such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry and shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Landscape screening shall not include Eucalyptus or Pine trees. W . Noise from tennis court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 10 OF 14 • X. The loft area of the stable shall have no glazed windows. Y. 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. Z. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the ,, amount of, .. the; costestimate of the implementation of the : . landscaping plan plus 15% ,shall be required to be posted prior to •issuance of a drainage, grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than twoyears after landscape installation: The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping .:was • installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition: AA. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the tennis court. AB. 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. AC. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AD. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall prevent water from permeating the guest house and RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 11 OF 14 tennis court building pad, protect the building pad from erosion, and direct surface water to the rear of the lot at the east. AF. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AG. During construction, in the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. AL. During construction the property owners shall , be' required to schedule and regulate construction', gu and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7. AM and 6 Monday through Saturday only, when', construction and mechanical equipmentnoise is 'permitted, so as. not to interfere with the . quiet residential environment of the '.City of Rolling .Hills. « Y ` ' AJ. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems as well as tennis court runoff, and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the rear or east of the lot. AK. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AL. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AM. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. AN. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 12 OF 14 • AO. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AP. 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. AQ. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AR. 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, conformto the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City. of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope: ratio. AS. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit. of . Acceptance .of all conditions of these Variance, Conditional. Use Permit and Site Plan 'Review • approvals,' pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or ,the approval shall:' not be: effective: AT. All conditions of these Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY O DEC1 IBI 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: g. k tAn") MARILY KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 13 OF 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERM.I i i tJU STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMii 1hU DISTURBED AREA, (4) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, (5) GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TENNIS COURT, AND (6) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUEST HOUSE, RETAINING WALL, AND TENNIS COURT THAT REQUIRE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 599. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission:: on December 21, 1999 by the following roll. call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hankins None. Commissioner Margeta. None. Sommer, Witte andChairman "Roberts and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 PAGE 14 OF 14 01/10/2000 17:23 13106316545 0 •Dokilizillaftwiimun b Gime* aro, ti; 6.:‘41 ditsm.41: PAGE 01 itnAi bkerumill- 414 4+6446 laia• _16;agoliva;" dart" Resahafi:" crtilt le 114miti ake• Sew Ole SP,. & tom Rep Y i .Ewis.J4. Naa w Pik • -sro- Tel •was 31D Y3/'7flISI 11/16/1999 :.6:57 13108318545 0 PAGE 01 0 kit v444J20..p /�i r l Q ? °j • Mu; 6c) P(e�s..ti•.. e9 C..v C3pp01'P4-1esg" 4� �/a.�► r,..a,, /p 4- 6.0 041 e,,O do, M04,0:46,ft f v7m Io 4 &c3 v .s9,, 1/23, of% # "CP e3a-Tallpini6 v dele-141, "1"-Tr tie l a.caCLAA.,a u4940 trnn -fth:m.so. o-(` ae. r`o-Gta..V► w;, v s 424404./y4.4.... E dr.04-641.140•1424 adolotoy.Z.7 , . 7nt. avelya, dasSows A u (444.0it.stalsvto.c440.410 •(.0.4.444.4r-t-6.4. frow41-4'/o e-40 _em L4:4 1^41.01.0-raVZ rak 4 S, CLA• a.. t w�., o o .ca. g h °`` 1..fue l tkeLtu-i i.a.,•� ev M. e 4044 Ca_. p C 1 VbCJ / b I Lr C94.‘• ags w ?)42.26A2- r'h,a;Lk.4CttKt6R.,;il,Q.'Aes..tts, to to at. I)440 • �- c t Nee.. -, crittwe-Q . ....., 11/16/1999 16:57 1310. 18545 0 PAGE 02 - • a.64,,ANL, LAI.. filieL404%.thicku eo-f- / awrea b30- 4NeJJ.A. irr‘dxm-ad, raAJ..?. 424-10 bitt-e.) kda-4A4a-- ,1b F—e'C"i L; s rQ O g.Q o wr-� -� �► t 14.1ca-c. Iscs4- ry%i 10%4 our v-.,, + , MU- G L �` • 51l- w3 r - gs9-5"" Fix Tie -- V51- Xl& elosi MARILYN MAI.MUTH 4 CUUTRiL131t ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 a , P-QG 't Q J QA613k ?Fall( way (zoad._ kev. szly6kevt_bo If> a Q� . P1nQN-cs-losas;%-r1Tcv-e-mco tsktuS& 0.01e)citp, vaiv. go.›.1)1/4(--15 p•ots mszps-)9.kero) 1.z6 (su: Oy.) Qot9.0 .A0 kestevib • at k 5kheil Q1A % 1)64016./ l( tRgq NOVEp@EIVE[ 1 5 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS tv‘f m QLkw9 tLLs PLPAcvi\IG ConmssuaN) frorg,.. MINI-MO:64 "Rc.. . ...to.oiE K$wn Ass sl4zz.d,.... kt%%dii1-4-- leut-J---(63C ..v).AAti,.o.1 -Caca.0 pctEthoWs. cal At)_ _Qt.61 sb N11 AA) Vc‘N %Meal) ikerl O.Kat ez0 _ eds._ .\-Teezalk -01 ud\bao.(y‘..4. tt OALLag Laistilet. ifal.k.. .0uNcti. (X.415Ni4u-te Osm.tud—,410._ bm.M. _Snicaet 11-1Q A apil_th_ —441XfuvrwC.;_is •••••••••• • I •••••••• • •••••••••••/ ••••••••••11 ••• tcmoRL4140i1.11 .124) tkti acl_oks4pd, o1/40 • • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 October 14, 1999 Mrs. Malmuth No. 4 Outrider Road Rolling Hills, California Regarding: No. 16 Eastfield Drive Gregorio Residence Dear Mrs. Malmuth, OCT 1 41999 CITY OF ROLLING f *LLS Ay As we discussed on last Tuesday evening after the Planning Commission field trip, I have revised the Gregorio tennis court and guest house design as follows: Tennis court is now a regulation size tennis court. Fences at tennis court shall not exceed 6 feet in height (noted on plans)... Fences shall be free of any wind screening materials (noted on plans). Tennis court playing surface has been lowered in elevation by 3 feet 6 inches, thus, lowering the top of the fence by the same amount (3 feet 6 inches). Guest house has been lowered in elevation by 1 feet 6 inches, thus lowering the roof the same. Enclosed please find the revised site plan. I have highlighted the areas mentioned above. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to call me at (310) 373-8077. I thank you for your input. I feel the revised design addresses all your concerns. Sincerely, Criss Gunderson cc: Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio Rolling Hills Planning Commission Lola Ungar, Planning Director • • C14 �!?!!•..SJdfG NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 599 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house and requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 599 to be at 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF). Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Greaorio. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new guest house and new sports court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained .. in the:: Califomia Environmental Quality , Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling .Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed' the projectand determined that the project will .not have' a, significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The Citv of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills, CA 90274. Date: September 1, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, PlanningtDfrector 01. Printed on Recycled Paper. City 0/ Allin, JUL APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT:.: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 599 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 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot proposed sports court that will require grading at an existing single-family residence, and requesting Site Plan Review for the guest house, sports court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot;68-B-EF) 7567-002-030 Residential Agricultural -Suburban -1 acre miriimum net lot area. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre No change. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre 1.98 acres Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 No x N/A 1-1 :r Printed en Recycled Paper. C \ a e J ..,..,.. :•9 4 t • /? • • a Weer •s_ •JI+r / . I)If M/ 0 Ao I 17 t /e !d/JAt I ,l/siw. /o i - • c. NO 100 2 \ • ▪ o. •e no/ TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS \ 4%•• 11 r. t Ott •.• M e RJ. /SO- 4. ' .i N , on.* e I..r. ., "NI... q to r, s3 1 r- 1 - 1 IP /'0 -�1 e 4 I.t..k O.1.. •a I CN eJ tr/e• .,. S. SO -,A 4 r ier I J.L.. • /So. ="•t��1 • _ -• 9/� � I,.+r • i • '-.-- ... P re s &l. 4t.,lr \• \ ?, c •• I it • o'• • ••••\ I 1 `aviw0 ...\ • : 6/e Ar. f O' t rro* L_ = — %4 / JOJ,* peo _-� L II 1 L. 1 45* 44 5 / 11 56 / ,l'\ \ .1.4324. s / o.R.\`SO AF�� � ute A• -j 03 kd t /Sera, 1 RNI As 46 40 tff.4.k A 141Av b \/t7VA. \rs► / 1\ R411Ac 43 \. ressAr \ 42 1 IJos.*I 1 s9•ca• • ,We 64 . ri ;qv ▪ .\ ..31 "y p • • cep •r! ..\ La.6A..I 1 .I N)Z.' \ ./l 33 %!4 j .'\ Z3 1a. I rl. Y.-1 M/ 4 (�\ I 4� �/, ds Ri ri i _ r.`•r/6J,ort I `} '�\, \v All * —1\' �-\C \ ro3 \\� 4 /oo 5 \ \\\ 22• \a R ,_ AWK/A�r/ / ♦ \ \\ZO N /srA \ a % - 9 \\rts7�\\ i>.\✓. v Arr�� 1 A! �reJ4Ye 4 .' ` / ``,......1 `�/ [0er.4� / S , <' ✓i .A \ J /04 mil` e\ ,t I06 d \\ r.oelw x ! w y \ /07 1,1‘‘ R A7sAa - - _ I r -� \ /12 /l3 • • lOa n�sA<. BOLA. r1 // tre4Ac J, �•I A • \ 11/ ItI // 4 h -, •I, •. T" if Mr. :I(' 'e - —r-- r 7J0•r \ P sNAr , • • A Q� ltan. • /41e Ac) r \ 4 6 Ni\\ b�. ax.& 1 '.*.. 9 4] .17/b City of Rolling Has .0•.f r.,7ss • 1 //sr I VICINITY MAP MR. AND MRS. JOSEPH GREGORIO 16 EASTFIELD DRIVE. ROLLING HILLS. CA 90274 Y� p • \ i 4. Att9AyJ S 36 , AWN AO / ,y •", new: 1 _ _ ,. "7 -i.1 14, \ '9b. ArJtAf.. / 0 1f"•4.•.6.11,- r-- eq "NU 31 R/ 1A. I J Pr — \ I 7/ 7p \ tet/A. • GTJS'A.- a>'e..�r s .l A.a2eft • •1, , AC % i 9J,4 • n5A. \ i • I•L. I . I �r e r ;. .e -•,4. ,- O !r/N, L fm »...S N t e • +i R._h • , • r r 1 41k • 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CASE NO. el7A. ZONING CASE NO. 599 Ow, L. J;; CPtM7f.f71 P l tl• wr. Marl .5SPie •/I Me, usr.• aA7ua -w • \ .. SITE b/..r IR A 0A! eat • • II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes k No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of Califomia, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business 'establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing: more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants are proposing the construction of a new 800 square foot guest house and a new 50' x 106' sports court on the lower level of a lot where there is an existing single family residence. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 • 1-2 • • B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 1.98 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage, swimming pool and service yard on the upper building pad and a proposed lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded. The same native birds and animals frequent: thearea such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum;skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. E. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. % I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,'. and (b). have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ° including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: September 1, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 LOLA M. UN �'R, PLANNING DIRECTOR ignature] V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. B. Impacts Adeauatelv Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 599 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies .where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from `Potentially Significant. Impact" to a "Less Than Significant :Impact." . The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain howthey reduce the effect to a .less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above . Maybe: :-cross-referenced). ' Earlier, analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other: CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D): In this case, a brief'.discussion ',- .Should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and statewhere'they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO.599 • • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether. impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural LandEvaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ II ❑ ❑ 0 ® 0 CI ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ • b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project::.. • ; a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) , Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 0 ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IEI INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ • • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or,death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as • delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the. area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-9 13 0 0 0 O 13 rgi ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 0 ® ❑ ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ IEI 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ El ❑ ❑ • • e) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? . d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to, Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) b) g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-10 0 0 0 0 0 CI CI 0 0 0 0 IZI rgi Eal lzl • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a mannerwhich would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-. or off -site? c) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which::. would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Rood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑Egi • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan .or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 13 IEJ 0 El an 13 0 El IEI 0 0 0 110 1-12 CO • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new orphysically altered govemmental facilities, need for newor physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in.order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑. 0 I J ❑ 0 0 El ❑ ❑ 0 l l ❑ 0 0 CM ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 Effl ❑ ❑ ❑ an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1-13 a • • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design'` feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., ,but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 O 0 O ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI 0 ❑ ❑ ❑cgi ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 1-14 Ci9 • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the' range ofa rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project: have impacts,.that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?.. '("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-15 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ CI CI • • The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Fom, which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant , Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item I. AESTHETICS. a-c. The guest house is required to be screened with landscaping so that the structure is obscured from neighboring properties. The sports court is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited in the City of Rolling Hills and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures A. The . applicants shall prepare and submit to the. City; .;fifteen . (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and :the proposed guest house and sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities,: a.4.50 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, :areas •;of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, atleast ..20 days priorlo the: Planning Commission hearing on the : project application: '! W (Staff :2, suggests that the applicants prepare and submit ,1 preliminary: topographicArading: plan . prior to making copies). . B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning .Commission: • Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a guest house and sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited size and nature of the project proposed, this impact would be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the • • retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. The guest house and sports court proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May 1986, is listed by the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California Gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of endangered species and on the Concemed list of the State, and in a recent census, pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of Califomia Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed 800 square foot guest house and 5,111 square foot sports court on 1.98 acres will be Tess than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming ' may have disrupted potential remains, 'minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been- a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, . paleontological or other cultural resource isencountered during project grading or development, .all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the :find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist orpaleontologist, whichever Is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the guest house and sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern Califomia, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this guest house and sports court project, is underlain by expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil I-17 • • will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a guest house and sports court, related erosion impacts will be Tess than significant. Mitigation Measures E. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a guest house, sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction .activities and building materials are. carefully !regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance;.'anhthe., Rolling Hills. Community Association. Theeffect of the construction, of a guesthouse -:and.sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increaserunoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the guest house and sports court the ;introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials and irrigation . systems. However, due to -the nominal increase in development proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. f. Future development of an 800 square foot guest house and a 5,111 square foot sports court on a 1.98 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j. No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed guest house and sports court will require a cut of 325 cubic yards and a fill of 325 cubic yards. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 • • Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a guest house and sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. d. Mitiaation Measures G. During , construction, the.: property. , owners shall be required to schedule and regulateconstruction 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. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be Tess than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed guest house and sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 1.98 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 4 Mitigation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed guest house and sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The guest house and sports court will be required to have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a guest house and sports court will be Tess than significant. Mitiaation Measures K. The property owners shall .be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. . The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water: Quality Control Board and County 'Health Department requirements for;; the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. The property owners shall be required to .conform with the. Regional ' Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works,Department .Best Management' Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII.• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The guest house and sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 0. I-20 • City leolliny JUL 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 Agenda Item No.: 6.A. Mtg. Date: 1/24/2000 DATE: JANUARY 24, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 599: An appeal of the following Planning Commission approved requests: (1) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (2) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, (3) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, (4) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed guest house, (5) Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court, and (6) Site Plan Review for the guest house, retaining wall, tennis court and grading at an existing single family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Gregorio, 16 Eastfield Drive (Lot 68-B-EF) BACKGROUND A. The City Council took Zoning Case No. 599 under their jurisdiction at their regular meeting on Monday, January 10, 2000. In accordance with Chapter 17.54 (Appeals) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a public hearing has been set for consideration by the City Council at this evening's meeting. B. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-19 that is attached on December 21,1999 at their regular meeting. The vote was 4-0. Commissioner Margeta was absent. Letters are attached from Mr. and Mrs. Ken Leeuwenburgh, 12 Eastfield Drive, and Mrs. Marilyn Malmuth, 4 Outrider Road. C. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Joseph S. Gregorio requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of an 800 square foot guest house, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a 5,111 square foot tennis court, and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of the guest house, a 128-foot long retaining wall, and tennis court that will require grading at an existing single family residence. During the public hearing process following the field trip, a regulation -sized 7,000 square foot tennis court was proposed by the applicants to replace the aforementioned tennis court, a 169-foot long retaining wall to replace the previous retaining wall, and the following three Variances were also requested: (i) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, (ii) Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, and (iii) Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area. 1. The Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage for the project is required because the structural lot coverage proposed is 15,282 square feet or 22.8% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). 2. The Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage for the project is required because the total lot coverage proposed is 25,322 square feet or 37.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3. The Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area for the project is required because the maximum disturbed area proposed is 27,539 square feet or 41.1% of the net lot (40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). • The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone in that "both the narrowness of the property as well as the fact that the property has 2 streets (roadway easements) bordering the western and northwestern sides of the property, so that the resultant net lot area is small for a nearly 2-acre parcel (1.98 acres). Thus, coverage figures are misleading." (Net area of a lot excludes the entire area within a roadway easement plus the area within 10 feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement). • In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "The spirit of the coverage and disturbance limitation are respected in that the openness of the site will be consistent with other neighboring properties. Also, the site has minimal topographical features yielding a greater perceived open area." The applicants are also requesting the following: 4. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an 800 square foot guest house to be located at a lower portion of the lot, 165 feet east of the existing residence. 5. Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court 4 feet east of the guest house. The tennis court will be 60 feet wide by 120 feet long. A 3-foot high, retaining wall that is 169 feet long will separate the guest house from the tennis court. The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Commissioners discussed conditions related to lowering the height of the proposed perimeter fence to 6 feet and prohibiting the use of windblocking slats in the proposed fence. 6. Site Plan Review for the guest house, tennis court and grading at the property site. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 2 • • The proposed project as presented conforms with Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) (Guest House) and 17.16.210(A)(7) (Recreation court) of the Zoning Code excevt that the project exceeds certain lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage, maximum 35% total lot coverage, and 40% maximum disturbed area (Requirements attached). D. Building permits show that the existing residence and attached garage was constructed in 1970 following the demolition of the previous dwelling unit. The pool was constructed in 1963, additions and remodeling took place in 1985, and there was a spa addition and pool remodel in 1993. An approved 75 square foot addition and remodel is currently taking place at the residence. E. Grading for the tennis court will require 310 cubic yards of cut soil and 410 cubic yards of fill soil (750 cubic yards maximum). Grading for the guest house will require 125 cubic yards of cut soil and 25 cubic yards of fill soil. The total cut will be 435 cubic yards and the total fill will be 435 cubic yards. The graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 10,000 square feet (10,000 square feet maximum). F. Coverage on the 22,570 square foot residential building pad is 6,932 square feet or 30.7%, the coverage on the 8,014 square foot guest house and tennis court pad is 7,800 square feet or 97.3%, and the coverage on the future 1,265 square foot stable and corral building pad is 450 square feet or 35%. Total building pad coverage will be 47.7%. (Planning Commission guideline is 30%). G. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the western portion of the lot off Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road where there is a circular driveway. Access to the guest house and tennis court will be from.the easement at the southwest. H. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the property at the eastern portion of lot. Access to the stable is available from Eastfield Drive along the southern easement. The slope access varies from 2 to 3% near the residence to 17% at the future stable and will not be greater than the 25% slope permitted. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: 1. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed tennis court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. 3. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and Zoning Case No. 599 Page 3 objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. 4. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. 5. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 6. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 7. 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. 8. The tennis court shall be screened with fencing on aII four sides. 9. The tennis court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. 10. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. 11. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. 12. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. 13. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans and take public testimony. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 4 * 0 A. That there are exceptional orextraordinary circumstances orconditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which kadenied the property in question; and O. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and O.That ingranting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will baobserved; and E. That the nehanoo does not grant special privilege; P.That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of LooAnge|oa Hazardous VVanto Management Plan relating to siting and siting ohhoha for hazardous waste facilities; and Zoning Case No. 599 Page 5 RAS-1 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for any grading requiring a grading permit; any new building structure (except barn/stable w/out grading; or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) GRADING Requires balanced cut and fill No encroachments into setbacks. Residence 5,264 sq.ft. Garage 787 sq.ft. Swim Pool 881 sq.ft. Service Yd. 100 sq.ft. Total 10.5% 25.5% 7,032 sq.ft. No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage Swim Pool Service Yd. Guest Hse. Sports Ct. Stable Total 20% 34.9% 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 5,111 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 13,393 sq.ft. N/A 325 cu. yds cut soil 325 cu. yds fill soil DISTURBED AREA 25.5% (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and buildinc pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist). RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. GUEST HOUSE & TENNIS COURT PAD N/A COVERAGE STABLE & CORRAL BUILDING PAD TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESSWAY Vehicular accessways need not be paved but the grade of the accessway shall not exceed a slope of 25 percent (25%). ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Zoning Case No. 599 Page 6 N/A 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. None N/A Existing circular driveway at western portion of lot at the corner of Eastfield Drive and Roundup Road. N/A N/A 39.2% 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 76% of 7,760 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 42.1% of 31,595 sq.ft. pads 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral on lower building pad. Proposed accessway from the easement at the southwest with a slope access of 2%-3% near the residence and up to 17% at the future stable that will not be greater than 25%. No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review pRO OSEC) No encroachments into setbacks. Residence Garage Swim Pool Service Yd. Guest Hse. Tennis Ct. Stable Total 22.8% 37.8% 5,264 sq.ft. 787 sq.ft. 881 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 7,000 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 15,282 sq.ft. 435 cu. yds cut soil/435 cu. yds fill soil (Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil/ 410 cu. yds fill soil) (Guest House: 125 cu.yds cut soil 25 cu. yds fill soil) 41.1% 30.7% of 22,570 sq.ft. 97.3% of 8,014 sq.ft. pad 35% of 1,265 sq.ft. pad 47.7% of 31,849 sq.ft. pads Same Same No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission Review a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guest house or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guest house is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements i. Preliminary landscaping required Required condition. 800 sq.ft. proposed. Required condition. Required condition. Over 200 feet from paved parking. Required condition. Required condition. Required condition. Required condition. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 7 :REA`I"IC1NA140AIVIlw,COU,f T? a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area. b. Prohibited in front yard. c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements. d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior. e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage). f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding a 2:1 grade, nor shall court be located on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses. g. Requires balanced cut and fill no to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area not exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible. j. Requires City/County approved drainage system. k. Requires screening on all four sides. I. Requires that landscape screening not interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements. m. Prohibits court lighting. n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Zoning Case No. 599 Page 8 PP Proposed 450 sq.ft. future stable and 550 sq.ft. corral at lower eastern portion of the property. Not in front yard Not within 50 feet of a paved road or street easement The retaining walls at the northern and western sides of the tennis court will not be exposed to the exterior and will not exceed 3 feet in height. Does not conform with lot coverage limitations. Structural lot coverage proposed is 22.8% and total lot coverage proposed is 37.8% Existing grade is 6.52:1. Existing slope does not exceed a 2:1 grade. Proposed cut and fill will be 720 cubic yards for the tennis court. Tennis Court: 310 cu. yds cut soil410 cu. yds fill soil Guest House:125 cu.yds cut soil25 cu. yds fill soil Total balanced 435 cu. yds cut soil/435 cu. yds fill soil for entire project. Graded area of the guest house and tennis court will be 8,014 sq.ft. and less than 10,000 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review 01/10/2000 17:23 1310831 0 • PAGE 01 Vs‘zelItAftwka,ti lb. sumo Tot R. its.bwi 14; la &Al damp.44: 11444 1._ Iv/ b%y.4«af-that .{.... tap,, 4:40;44.40;". aF RessaleatCrt 9Y'It I _ism %wail swami. Ale ft,. OdisffeW byeLeCi • 4 &rya -lag Lzb SurfAaNam• FAA up • sat. -re/ -fait 3t0 It BI aftvrftlya' 11 / 16/ 1999 :: 6: 57 1310631854 0 4 PAGE 01 /Vd,J!.wJa .i HD t (Q ? ct ?faith me" 6 hnrv+.SS,a' Zon:pi `P( „Amu. eta a 4 (a_ 0, „AA/ c, pp 4 ;Os" " B41”4.01.4 -For 1 0 ÷ ao /e.. 54tocLc-f€4 Xi. t Mo.F rua..h lel at I 0 ÷ Cial uuti."34p cti.. 6.04Dea-V•4 Cr v 'S pe 04: dee-Mr:fdp i t& b 1'C ray rea..fre;c.d e:r-r t‘o-Tioz.40, 47e- vv.% 8.4b4-414,0"4. kt e.we.4).. ..7-ki.fired via IAA och D M'IL, Q'X, /►:. elms- - A H u4aA'LCkcil1'g't EA-4.4,.4414- i w hoka-u- 6-40 es-ty. dt 4 fat. 04.10 le 4-3 4m,..ely KA..6 to f..)-xl) .0L-1-44)- s e-a-Lee CJ-, C.e 404 CIL Pal: sec ' c-94.10 et435v' ) 420-412- rek,a; *1-0-1:AA. tttc? 3544 t es era cse A...A * ca e.w+.. (141.Ar uRAe *614 11/16/1999 16:57 13118545 0 PAGE 02 di f y t twt eL ;s r ezx to 4:.&, ; • `� 1` I, t,� _ _ .) /N �J V, 4/‘, Wits.v locik mi ei 4a.04 esi.L.41W2L autr w : L.e. -icor t'-' - -4s..o 3 Woo.1►s 1,160LiAlk, 4104.4. Mu- G Lo ts.A.Ltzfre-viL a E�.t.res-11. v ..�. . i - ir3 / _ gs91— FM Tie— v51- $IC. }. MARILYN MALMUTH 4 t)UTRIUER ROAI? RC)t.UNG HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 1)66kerNaid 11 IRRR cF . ) ‘8 A Tio1\61.0 44`cPN taw a ad_ >J c5;n01_,.>:x..60‘c u5,6,1za --eNt oda 62,\L es/cc-Isuizt., com.trotbk3 ‘sf-1 c\t\wcmNb‘trl'inut'(\co _.9 cox( el-ct-tp qcv"-I co-> oThszraJlertio a6klmvatp-1-- szca: oyAlswoi Qcta) -,EAk.(5‘6 4ctni-vu-- cz5k-beiNtQl6 E El 13 d NOV 1 5 1999 CITY OF R.OLLING HILLS `46--,.>An • MEmo Q0,1__t_wcoLLSPLPi00‘1\16 Comcms(013 fronN.. NNtcau_1/4. Tsi\p‘t_mkrci-x — oux-Ri-c.Gfre... darzso_e59,TY_____ • •••• •••• • • • ••••••• ••••......• • • . ...c.c.).1.$1D! V'Ndact-e, tsi). . . Qt0 c$113-NQ clIck..A6.46 al qc • • • .tr")-- Qttlixosy._ • Joni .Rtn. to_ tatu. L‘c& alurT awin CL, COI .0 SO, kolk9d -oat3 -cknhx-rniNeft. jr%tti_