Loading...
917, Construct a one-story stable, CorrespondenceCite July 11, 2017 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • °mo m„g ,Aff, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 917. Request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances - 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on July 10, 2017 approved a resolution granting your request in Zoning Case No. 917. Before this case takes effect you are required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder. Please make a copy of the Resolution for your files. The conditions of approval must be printed onto the Cover Sheet of the final plans. I am enclosing a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 1213, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council and the approved Development Plan to keep for your files. Please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward, (or hand deliver), the completed form and the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 OR LAX Courthouse 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142 Mon -Fri 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m Please confirm the cost with the County Clerks Office for recordation of the documents. Printed on Recycled Paper Please keep a copy of the plans with the conditions printed on the plans on site and assure that your engineer, architect and contractor adhere to the conditions in the Resolution during the construction process. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Julie' Stewart Assistant Planner Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 1213 DEVELOPMENT PLAN • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO. 917 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW I (We) the undersigned state ) §§ (SEE EXHIBIT A - ATTACHED) XX CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT XX VARIANCES I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 5 PINE TREE LANE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 94-RH) This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 917 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT XX VARIANCES I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State See Exhibit A attached Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF COUNTY OF } } On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: Name of Notary: Date Commission Expires Commission No. RESOLUTION NO. 1213 S E x- e I T Pr A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH BASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALL; AND REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND DRIVEWAY, DETACHED GARAGE, TENNIS COURT, AND STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW EXCEEDANCE OF DISTURBANCE AND GRADING LIMITS FOR A SPORTS COURT, AND ANY RELATED IMPROVEMENTS IN ZONING CASE NO. 917 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, LOT 94-RH, (SHARNG). THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Lauren Sharng with respect to real property located at 5 Pine Tree Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 94-RH) requesting a Site Plan Review for the remodeling of a 4,340 square foot existing residence with construction of 2,065 square feet of a new residential addition for a combined total 6,405 square foot residence and 31,920 cubic yards of overall grading. The residence is proposed to have 1,380 square feet of covered porches, a new 1,100 square foot detached garage, a new 2,065 square foot basement (at a maximum depth of 16 feet), a 96 square foot service yard and 60 square foot enclosed space for pool equipment. Also proposed are a 325 square foot Porte cochere, a 700 square foot swimming pool and spa, and exterior features including two decks, a covered entry, trellis over a patio near the tennis court, a pool deck, and other minor amenities. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the construction of a 1,200 square foot one-story stable with 640 square feet of covered porches, a 9,150 square foot corral, a new second driveway located north of the existing driveway leading to the new detached garage, and a 7,000 square foot tennis court. A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum permitted 40% disturbance of the lot resulting from general grading for the proposed project and to grade more than the maximum permitted 750 cubic yards of dirt and over 10,000 square feet surface area for the tennis court. The applicant is proposing a total overall disturbance of 46.12%. The grading for the proposed tennis court will require 2,095 c.y. of cut and fill and 13,000 square feet of surface area alteration. Section 2. The applicants also request a Site Plan Review for excavation and grading related to the proposed project. Grading of a total of 31,920 cubic yards of dirt (8,460 c.y. cut and 7,610 c.y. fill; and 7,500 c.y. over -excavation and 7,500 c.y. recompaction) with no dirt to be exported is requested. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings held on February 21, 2017, in the field, and continued the meeting to the evening meeting, and on March 21, 2017 and April 18, 2017. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 9, 2017. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and agents were in attendance at the hearings evidence was heard and presented from all person interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. The City Council at the May 8, 2017 meeting, took the project under jurisdiction, and scheduled a public hearing for May 30, 2017. Section 4. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on May 30, 2017, in the field and at their regularly scheduled meeting, on June 26, 2017. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 18, 2017. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff, neighbors and applicant's engineer and attorney and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. At the public hearings there was discussion regarding how the residential addition would be attached and the feasibility of vacating some or all of the existing driveway on the southerly side of the property. Section 5. The City Council finds that the project is exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Class 3, Section 15303 (new construction of single family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines. Section 6. Site Plan Review -Proposed Development. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -1- grading permit or arw building or structure may be constructed Ilkny expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made. The grading for the development and the new structures require Site Plan Review. With respect to the Plans submitted for the development, the City Council hereby approves the request for Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 917 to build the proposed project and makes the following findings: 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 and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The net lot area of the property is over 4 acres and the lot is adjacent to other large lots along Pine Tree Lane. The stable and corral promote the rural, equestrian character of Rolling Hills. None of the proposed new structures are in setbacks. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the property is 187,196 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 18,671 square feet or 10.0%, which includes all of the structures, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed, including the driveway would be 32,386 square feet or 17.3%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 46.12% which requires a variance. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed location of structures on the lot will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The project promotes equestrian uses, therefore, furthering the City's goal to remain an equestrian community. C. The proposed development, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility from Pine Tree Lane and the development will be sunk and moved back from the roadway easement, so that visibility from the road will be minimized The slopes being created were lengthened to reduce the steepness. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from the road and all neighbors with landscaping. D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new second driveway apron is located an adequate distance to provide sufficient line of sight for drivers on Pine Tree Lane. There is ample parking in the garages and there is a proposed parking area for guests along the side of the new driveway so all visitor parking will be contained on site. An adequate pathway to the stable and corral area is proposed to safely accommodate horses, feed, and supplies. Section 7 — Conditional Use Permits. Sections 17.18.060 and 17.18.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a stable over 200 square feet and corral over 550 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed 1,200 square foot stable and 9,150 square foot corral comply with all requirements of these sections. A 7,000 square foot tennis court is proposed. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a recreational game court, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. A second driveway is proposed. Section 17.16.210(A)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a second driveway. A 1,100 square foot detached garage is proposed. Section 17.16.210(A)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for detached garages. All of the detached structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures barring those with variances. With respect to this request for Conditional Use Permits, the City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -2- A. Con nally permitted uses are not outright permitted the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The City Council must consider applications for a Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the stable and corral, tennis court, second driveway, and detached garage would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the uses are consistent with similar uses in the community, and meet all the applicable code development standards for such uses, barring those needing a variance, and they are located in the areas on the property that are adequately sized to accommodate such uses. The proposed uses are appropriately located in that they will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters. The stable/corral would be constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and encouraging equestrian uses. The proposed tennis court is a common amenity to Rolling Hills. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed uses (stable/corral, tennis court, second driveway, and detached garage) are located mostly in the middle of a 4 acre lot and their general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be located adjacent to the corral and a path designated for equestrian uses that runs from the stable to the road is separate from the other outdoor living areas on the property and will be comprised of decomposed granite. The tennis court is partially recessed into the slope to reduce visibility and assist with noise attenuation. The detached garage will not be visible from the street. The second driveway matches the terrain. D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the proposed uses comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 4 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed uses. The stable will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area because Rolling Hills is an equestrian community and stables are encouraged. The stable will look like a stable and with the corral will promote open space on the pad. The detached garage will be compatible with the uses in the surrounding area because it will have the same architectural design as the house and is behind the house. The tennis court and second driveway are amenities other residences in Rolling Hills enjoy. E. The proposed conditional uses comply with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090, 17.16.210(A)(1)(4)and(7) of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to 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. Section 8. - Variances. 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. Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance contains conditions for a recreational game court, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant is requesting permission to grade more than the allowable 750 cubic yards by grading 2,095 cubic yards and exceed the allowable 10,000 square feet of surface grading by grading a surface area of 13,000 square feet in order to construct the tennis court. All of the detached structures comply with the provisions and conditions for such structures except those stipulated in Sections 17.16.210(h) and (i). With respect to this request for Variances, the City Council fords as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the existing lot, despite it being just under 5 acres gross, has approximately half of its overall area at a slope of 2:1 or steeper and the remainder undulated and hilly and the lot requires grading in order to create a sufficient flat area to construct the house and accessory structures. The Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -3- existing building pad clionly support a residential addition by removing xisting pool. The tennis court pad needed to be created and access to the residential unit provided by the second driveway helps to screen the tennis court as it is partially sunken into the hillside. There is a drainage course along the western property line, which must also be avoided. In order to generate the dirt needed for the pad, it was necessary to drop the stable and corral pad. 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, which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is sloped in nature so in order to provide pads that meet the development standards, additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house addition and amenities because the topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Sections 17.16.170 and 17.16.210. The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the need for residential pad creation. There were no concerns voiced by residents and the Planning Commissioners during the public hearing considered alternatives during the field visit to the site but believed the proposed plan was caused the least impact to the area after further consideration of project alternatives. 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. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any setbacks and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the rows of existing trees currently in the vicinity. D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity and zone. E. 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. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Case No. 917 request for the remodeling of a 4,340 square foot existing residence with construction of 2,065 square feet of a new residential addition for a combined total 6,405 square foot residence and 31,920 cubic yards of overall grading. The residence is proposed to have 1,380 square feet of covered porches, a new 1,100 square foot detached garage, a new 2,065 square foot basement (at a maximum depth of 16 feet), a 96 square foot service yard and 60 square foot enclosed space for pool equipment. Also proposed are a 325 square foot Porte cochere, a 700 square foot swimming pool and spa, and exterior features including two decks, a covered entry, trellis over a patio near the tennis court, a pool deck, and other minor amenities. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the construction of a 1,200 square foot one-story stable with 640 square feet of covered porches, a 9,150 square foot corral, a new second driveway located north of the existing driveway leading to the new detached garage, and a 7,000 square foot tennis court. A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum permitted 40% disturbance of the lot resulting from general grading for the proposed project and to grade more than the maximum permitted 750 cubic yards of dirt and over 10,000 square feet surface area for the tennis court, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080, 17.42.070, and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -4- suspension and stork order will be lifted once the Applicant cures tiolation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this 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 received on May 4, 2017 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. E. Prior to submittal of fmal working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the City Council. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 18,671 square feet (with deductions) or 10.0% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 32,386 (with deductions) or 17.30%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). H. Grading for this project shall not exceed 8,460 cubic yards of cut and 7,610 cubic yards of fill; 7,500 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 8,350 cubic yards of recompaction and shall be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall not exceed 46.12%. I. The residential building pad is proposed at 21,800 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 9,191 square feet or 42.16% with allowed deductions. The tennis court pad is proposed at 7,315 square feet and shall not exceed 7,000 square feet of coverage or 95.7% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is proposed at 10,925 square feet and shall not exceed 1,720 square feet of coverage or 15.74% with allowed deductions. J. A new second driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements, with spaces for guest parking. Any damage caused to any apron, easements or curbs by construction activities shall be restored at the expense of the applicant. Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -5- • .. K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like 100% pervious roughened material. L. A new proposed 10 foot wide decomposed granite pathway providing stable access shall be configured with an apron on Pine Tree Lane that is recommended for approval by the City's traffic engineer prior to any permit approval. M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department. N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with a tight closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural drainage course or spread on the property. O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. P. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Q. All utility lines to the residence, guesthouse, detached garages, and stable shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. R. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. S. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and graded slopes. Prior to fmaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge like screen but be offset. The height of any new trees and shrubs are to be planted in conformance with the landscaping plans for this project. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water -wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18of the RHMC). The applicant shall submit a landscaping performance bond or other financial obligation, to be kept on deposit by the City, in the amount of the planting plus irrigation plus 15%. The bond shall be released no sooner than two years after completion of all plantings, subject to a City staff determination that the plantings required for the project are in substantial conformance with approved plans and are in good condition. T. • The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. V. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -6- people or propert} not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust,. objectionable odors shall be required. X. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within the unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Pine Tree Lane adjacent to project site only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways as much as feasible. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. Y. 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. Z. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: httn://www.wrh.noaa.eov/lox/main.nhn?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. AA. 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) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. AB. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. AD. Per special direction from the City Council, during construction, the southern most driveway shall remain unobstructed by construction vehicles. An open lane providing egress and ingress shall not be impeded. In the event that construction activities require the use of the southern most driveway, a flagman shall be provided to assist with usage of the driveway. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS loth DAY OF JULY 2017. Ckf ,SON MAYOR PRO TEM ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -7- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1213 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH BASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALL; AND REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND DRIVEWAY, DETACHED GARAGE, TENNIS COURT, AND STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW EXCEEDANCE OF DISTURBANCE AND GRADING LIMITS FOR A SPORTS COURT, AND ANY RELATED IMPROVEMENTS IN ZONING CASE NO. 917 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, LOT 94-RH, (SHARNG). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on July 10, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Wilson. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Pieper and Mayor Black. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ciltdoetia) HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1213 5 Pine Tree Lane -8- 1;1A, May 17, 2017 City i ko l�'np fiu/i Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 917 - Site Plan Review/CUP/Variance - 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng: This letter is to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on May 8, 2017, reviewed your application in Zoning Case No. 917 and took it under jurisdiction. A field trip public hearing is being scheduled on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, at 7:00 AM in the morning. Your neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site will be notified of the hearing. Following the field trip, the City Council will continue the hearing to their regular meeting on Monday, June 26, 2017, beginning at 7:00 PM at City Hall. Please be sure that the project is properly and accurately staked, including all structures, limits of grading, finished floor elevations, ridge lines, driveway, drainage devices, access to stable and property, setbacks and roadway easement lines. Should you wish to provide additional information and/or reports for the City Council field trip, please submit 6 ready to be distributed hard copies to staff no later than Tuesday, May 23rd. The staff report together with the background information, will be available and will be mailed to you on Friday, May 26, 2017. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Julia Stewart Assistant Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • Memorandum TO: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager FROM: Vanessa Munoz, City Traffic Engineer DATE: May 2, 2017 SUBJECT: 5 Pine Tree Lane Driveways • WI LLDAN Engineering This memorandum is in response to a request by the City to review and provide input to the revised proposed driveways for 5 Pine Tree Lane by the resident. The proposed driveways consist of adding a second driveway to access the residence with a 32.-foot wide driveway apron and 20-foot aisle width. The second proposed driveway will serve the stables and corral; the proposed driveway apron width is 15-feet with a DG 10-foot aisle width. On May 1, 2017, a field review of existing conditions was performed to assess the proposed driveway locations with regards to existing conditions and review the adequacy of the sight distance. The sight distance at a minimum should be 175-feet for a 25-mph roadway due to the steep roadway terrain. The proposed location for the residence driveway including sight distance and driveway width is adequate. The proposed driveway to access the stable and corral including location and sight distance is adequate. The 10-foot driveway aisle width for the stable and corral although not ideal it is acceptable due to the type of usage being proposed for it. Based on the field observations and engineering judgement, the proposed driveways to access the residence and stables are acceptable. • Cry ol Rolling JJ,II April 20, 2017 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 1 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 917. Request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance — 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on April 18, 2017, granting your request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances, in Zoning Case No. 917. The Resolution was included in your staff report. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on MONDAY, May 8, 2017, at their regular meeting beginning at 7:00 PM. You or your representative should be present to answer any questions the City Council may have. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed within that thirty (30) day appeal period or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Anyone, including the applicant, may appeal the Planning Commission's decision or part thereof to the City Council. Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. If no appeals are filed and if the City Council does not take jurisdiction of this case, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. The staff report to the City Council will be mailed to you on Friday, May 5, 2017. After the City Council's action, I will forward to you instructions for recordation of the Affidavit Of Acceptance Form and the Resolution. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ju la Stewart Assistant Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • • e1t o ie0ii t i& March 29, 2017 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: 5 Pine Tree Lane - New Driveway Aprons Dear Ms. Sharng, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 At its meeting of March 24, 2017, the Traffic Commission supported your request for a new driveway apron serving the residence at 5 Pine Tree Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. Rolling Hills Community Association review and approval is required. 2. The new driveway apron shall be in compliance with the submitted plan. 3. The first 20 feet of the driveway apron shall have a maximum slope of 7%. 4. The driveway apron shall be roughened. With regard to the proposed driveway apron for the pathway serving the stable, the Traffic Commission supported the request, subject to the revisions proposed by your representative and pending the City Traffic Engineer's approval. The City Council will consider both matters in conjunction with the Planning Commission's action relative to the proposed development. You will be informed of that date after the Planning Commission takes action. Please maintain the staking of the proposed driveway apron until after the City Council considers the matter and takes final action. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call the City at 310-377-1521. Raymond R. Cruz City Manager RC:hl 03-29-17 Driveway5PineTreeLane _TC.docx c: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper C1t olRorins.,ullo March 27, 2017 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 917. - Request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances at 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on March 21, 2017 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request, with conditions, in Zoning Case No. 917. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting on April 18, 2017 at their regular meeting beginning at 6:30 PM, and make its final decision on your application at that meeting. At it's meeting on March 23, 2017, the Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed apron for the D.G. pathway leading to the stable. The Traffic Commission recommended the apron be moved and would recommend approval subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval recommendation of the new apron location. The recommendation of approval by the Traffic Engineer (and subsequent approval recommendation by the Traffic Commission) is a special condition of approval in the draft resolution for your proposed project. The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you and your representative before the Planning Commission meeting for your review. The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commissions resolution unless an appeal has been filed within 30 days or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within 45-days. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. As stated above, the Planning Commission's meeting to consider the resolution of approval is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 6:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on Monday, May 8, 2017. Information regarding that meeting will be provided to you after the Planning Commission's decision. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Julia ewart Assistant Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering i TO: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager FROM: Vanessa Munoz, City Traffic Engineer DATE: March 15, 2017 SUBJECT: 5 Pine Tree Lane Driveways MEr LLDAN Engineering This memorandum is in response to a request by the City to review and provide input to the proposed driveways for 5 Pine Tree Lane by the resident. The proposed driveways consist of adding a second driveway to access the residence with a 32.-foot wide driveway apron and 20-foot aisle width. The second proposed driveway will serve the stables and corral; the proposed driveway apron width is 23.5-feet with a DG 10-foot aisle width. The stables and corral driveway is being proposed across the 6 Pine Tree Lane main driveway entrance and across an existing drainage culvert. On March 14, 2017, a field review of existing conditions was performed to assess the proposed driveway locations with regards to existing conditions and review the adequacy of the sight distance. The sight distance at a minimum should be 175-feet for a 25-mph roadway due to the steep roadway terrain. The proposed location for the residence driveway including sight distance and driveway width is adequate. The proposed driveway to access the stable and corral has adequate driveway apron width and a 10-foot aisle width, the aisle width although not ideal it is acceptable due to the type of usage being proposed for it, furthermore the sight distance to the right exceeds the minimum recommended length, however to the left the sight distance is approximately 100 feet which is below the recommended sight distance length. Based on the filed observations and engineering judgement, the proposed driveway to access the residence is acceptable but the proposed driveway for the stable and corral needs to be redesign and moved to provide adequate sight distance and is not acceptable as proposed. fi Q • C1t e/ ie0ii1ng J/i//� February 22, 2017 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 917 Request for SPR, CUP, and Variance - 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 917 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at your property of 5 Pine Tree Lane at 7:30 AM. Your neighbors within 1,000-foot radius of your property will be notified of this meeting. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • Stake and flag the entire proposed project, including out -of -grade condition where retaining walls or fencing are proposed, porches, any outdoor amenities and patios; • Stake the ridgeline/roof of the new construction cover • Stake all setbacks, driveway aprons, and driveways or pathways and parking areas • Stake/tape the proposed stairs. Incomplete depiction for the Field Trip will result in postponement of the review. Printed on Recycled Paper The meeting will continue on March 21, 2017 at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend both meetings to present your project and to answer questions. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, )----- r----L>. Julia Stewart Assistant Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering • • atc qce4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES A silhouette of proposed construction must be erected the week preceding the designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting /field trip. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. Bracing should be provided. Lumber, wire or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. Flags in close proximity to each other must be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. Property lines, setback lines and easement lines must be staked along the areas of construction. 21h - 3' high wooden stakes must be used to delineate the lines. Such stakes must be flagged and marked on their sides: • Property line ( red or pink flag) • Setback line (green flag) • Easement line (yellow flag) and remain in the ground throughout the entire review and approval process as well as during the entire construction process, when required by the Commission. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. - If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (310) 377-1521. • Alt - •\ SECTION PLAN Public:PLANNING MASTERS:City of Rolling Hills Silhouette Guidelines.doc -1- • £'ttj U Rolling //i/ls INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETINGFAx: (310) 377-7288 January 26, 2017 Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 917 Request for SPR, Variance, & CUP - 5 Pine Tree Lane Dear Ms. Sharng; Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 917 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 6:30 PM, at City Hall Council Chambers. Your neighbors within 1,000-foot radius of your property will be notified of this meeting. You or your designated representative must attend the meeting to present your project and to answer questions. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Julia Stewart Assistant Planner cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering Printed on Recycled Paper Ci4, o/Ro rrn9 Jh/to INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 August 26, 2016 Ms. Lauren Sharng 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 901 - Site Plan Review/CUP/VR Dear Ms. Sharng: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on August 22, 2016 following a public hearing due to an appeal, upheld Planning Commission's decision to approve your project at 5 Pine Tree Lane. Before this case takes effect you are required to record an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject Resolution in the Office of the County Recorder. Please read the conditions of approval, as some may have to be met prior to issuance of a grading and/ or building permit. In addition, the conditions of approval must be printed onto the cover sheet of the plans for submittal to the Building Department. Please make a copy of the resolution for your files. I am enclosing a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 1188 specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council; and the approved Development Plan to keep for your files. Please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward, (or hand deliver), the completed form and the Resolution of approval to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 (562) 462-2125 OR LAX Courthouse Printed on Recycled Paper 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142 Please call the Recorder's office for their filing fees. Please keep a copy of the plans with the conditions printed on the plans at the construction site and ensure that your architect, engineer, soils consultant and contractor adhere to the conditions in the Resolution during the construction process. Any deviation from the approved plans and conditions of approval must be brought to City's attention for review prior to it being implemented by your contractor. Please note that the City has a View Protection Ordinance that protects the view one had at the time of acquisition of the property. If you believe you have a view from your property, please make sure to take photographic dated evidence from your viewing area as close to the time you acquired your property as possible. "View" means a view from a principal residence, but not including from garages or closets, and any immediately adjoining patio or deck area at the same elevation as the residence which consists of a visually impressive scene or vista not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence, such as a scene of the Pacific Ocean, off -shore islands, city lights of the Los Angeles basin, the Palos Verdes Hills or Los Angeles Harbor. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Si nta Schwa Planning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 1188 SITE PLAN cc: Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering, (cover letter only) • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 901 (SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED) XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES XX CUP (We) the undersigned state I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 5 PINE TREE LANE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 94-RH) This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 901 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES XX CUP t (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF COUNTY OF ) On , before me, Notary Public, personally appeared ,a who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: Name of Notary: Date Commission Expires Commission No. • • RESOLUTION NO. 1188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94- RH), (SHARNG). THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Lauren Sharng to request a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut and 11,775 c.y. fill; 12,300 c.y. over -excavation and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction). The applicant also requests a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. Section 2. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-15 approving the project on June 21, 2016 and the City Council received and filed a report in this case on July 11, 2016. Chapter 17.54 of the Municipal Code sets the process for appeals of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Anyone may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission within 30-days of the Commission action. On July 21, 2016 an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed to the City Council. On August 8, 2016 the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing in Zoning Case No. 901, and after discussion and consideration, directed staff to prepare a Resolution upholding the Planning Commissions action. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 5.15 acres. The net lot area is 4.3 acres or 187,196 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a single -family residence, garage, and swimming pool, which will be demolished. Access to the property is taken from a joint driveway approach with 3 Pine Tree Lane. A Condition of Approval is for the applicant to abandon their portion of the joint driveway once their new driveway is constructed and remove the concrete, but retain and not affect the access serving 3 Pine Tree Lane. Section 4. The City Council finds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption) of the CEQA guidelines. Section 5. 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 new 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 not more than 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. The grading for the structures (new residence, garages, swimming pool, guest house, and stable) require Site Plan Review due to the fact that they are new structures and per Zoning Code 17.46.020.A-2. The pool requires a Site Plan Review due to the grading required for it under Zoning Code 17.46.020.A.2(a) and the size, and the retaining walls require a Site Plan Review due to their height being over 3' in height and over 2.5' average. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 1 • • With respect to the Site Plan for grading and the proposed structures the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40% at 45.2%, a large portion of it is for the proposed 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft (which requires a Conditional Use Permit), and the associated 3,900 square foot corral along with the long driveway that is needed to accommodate horse trailers. The stable and corral promote the rural, equestrian aesthetic of Rolling Hills. None of the structures are in setbacks. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for disturbance. The net lot area of the lot is 187,196 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 12,279 square feet or 6.56%, which includes all of the structures, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed, including the driveway would be 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 45.2%, which exceeds the maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). B. , The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed partially on the existing building pad of the currently developed lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will allow the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The proposed project would be located on a gentler slope of the property and leaving the steeper and more densely vegetated areas in their natural state to the north and northeast, along with the natural drainage course. The project promotes equestrian uses, therefore furthering the City's goal to remain an equestrian community. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to other residences in the vicinity of said lot as the proposed house is 5,250 square feet and the average in the vicinity is 5,149 square feet. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading by utilizing a portion of the existing building pad for the new development. Due to the existing house being located in the setback and easement it is necessary to move the new house and therefore drop the pad elevation in order to achieve the necessary building pad. The residence is proposed on the shallowest sloped area with a basement being added to increase the residence size while reducing the footprint. The slopes being created have been rounded and it was attempted to mimic the existing slope in the area. The use of retaining walls along the upper side of the building pad/back yard, stable and driveway has helped to minimize grading. D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. There will be some clearing of existing landscaping due to overgrowth and improper maintenance that has become a fire hazard. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the new 20' driveway will be safer to drive on as two cars can safely pass one another. There is ample parking in the garages and there is a proposed parking pad at the front of the house, outside of all setbacks, as Pine Tree Lane does not have wide shoulders to park on so all visitor parking must be Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 2 • • E. The proposed conditional uses (stable/corral, detached garages, and guest house) complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires Conditional Use Permits pursuant to Sections 17.18.060, 17.18.090, 17.16.210(A)(4), and 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to 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. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.16.190(F) that walls not exceed five feet or 2.5 feet in average, and from 17.16.070(B) that disturbance be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The walls do not exceed 5' high maximum but they do not average out to 2.5' high and require a variance. The disturbance is proposed at 45.2%, which is higher than the permitted 40% due in large part to the proposed long driveway. With respect to this request for Variances, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the existing lot, despite it being over 5 acres gross, has approximately half of its overall area at a slope of 2:1 or steeper and the remainder undulated and hilly and the lot requires grading in order to create a sufficient flat area to construct the house and accessory structures. The existing building pad cannot be utilized in its entirety for the new development, as most of it is located in the setback. There is a drainage course along the western property line, which must also be avoided. In order to generate the dirt needed for the pad, it was necessary to drop the pad and the walls helped to achieve this. However, due to the slope in the rear of the lot, and no grading allowed in the Association easements, the average wall height did not average to 2.5'. The majority of the walls will not be visible from the street and will mainly only be seen by the owner as they will be flanking the residential pad. The walls for the stable will be visible from the western side. However, there is a steep slope between the walls and the property line along with existing vegetation, which will add additional screening for these walls. 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, which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance, because the site is sloped in nature so in order to provide a pad that meets the development standards, additional grading is required and it was necessary to push the limits of grading farther out than if the lot did not have as much slope to it. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a new house because the topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.170. The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed driveway. Any concerns voiced by residents and the City Council during the public hearing were addressed in the revised site plan and during the field visit to the site. 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. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity and the walls which exceed 2.5' average in height are not in any setbacks and will not cause any line of sight issues on Pine Tree Lane due to the rows of existing trees currently in the vicinity. D. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 4 • • • The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity and zone. E. 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. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Case No. 901 request for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with a 5,250 square foot basement, 1,115 square feet of detached garages (714 and 441 square feet each), 1,445 square feet covered porches including 520 square feet at the stable, 964 square foot swimming pool and spa, 50 square foot pool equipment, 300 square foot service yard, 275 square foot entryway, retaining walls, new driveway, 350 square foot outdoor kitchen, and grading for a total of 48,150 cubic yards of dirt (11,775 c.y. cut, 12,300 c.y. over excavation, and 11,775 c.y. fill, and 12,300 c.y. re -compaction); Conditional Use Permit to construct an 800 square foot guesthouse, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 611 square foot loft; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. With the proposed grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 45.2% subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan, Conditional Use Permits, and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080,17.42.070, and 17.38.070 unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building 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 this 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 dated July 01, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. Any modifications andjor changes to the approved project, including those resulting from field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the changes. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the City Coucil. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 5 to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 12,279 square feet or 6.56% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, shall not exceed 29,074 square feet or 15.5%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). H. Grading for this project shall not exceed 11,775 cubic yards of cut and 11,775 cubic yards of fill; 12,300 cubic yards of over -excavation, and 12,300 cubic yards of recompaction and shall be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall not exceed 45.2%. I. The residential building pad is proposed at 44,100 square feet and shall not exceed coverage of 9,344 square feet or 21.2% with allowed deductions. The stable pad is proposed at 5,720 square feet and shall not exceed 2,149 square feet of coverage or 37.6% with allowed deductions. J. A new driveway shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and the apron of the driveway shall meet the conditions of approval of the Traffic Commission. Further, the portion of the existing shared driveway with 3 Pine Tree Lane that is located on the property at 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be abandoned and the concrete removed once the new driveway off Pine Tree Lane is completed. At no time shall vehicular access to 3 Pine Tree Lane be impacted by construction activities at 5 Pine Tree Lane. The driveway apron serving 3 Pine Tree Lane, but located on 5 Pine Tree Lane shall be unaffected by this development and shall be available at all times for egress and ingress to 3 Pine Tree Lane. Photographic evidence of the condition of the shared driveway and apron with 3 Pine Tree Lane shall be submitted to the Planning Department before any construction or demolition. Any damage caused to the apron, easements or curbs by construction activities shall be restored at the expense of the applicant. K. Access to the stable and to the corral shall be decomposed granite or like 100% pervious roughened material. L. Only one sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink, and a toilet and a kitchenette is permitted in the guesthouse per Section 17.16.210(A)(5)(c). M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as otherwise required by the Fire Department. N. At any time there are horses on the property, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be applied for manure control, including but not be limited to removal of the manure on a daily basis or provision of a receptacle with a tight closing lid that is constructed of brick, stone, concrete, metal or wood lined with metal or other sound material and that is safeguarded against access by flies. The contents of said receptacles shall be removed once a week. It is prohibited to dispose of manure or any animal waste into the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), into natural drainage course or spread on the property. O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. P. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 6 Q. All utility lines to the residence, guesthouse, detached garages, and stable shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. R. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. S. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be planted to screen the project from the neighbors. At time of planting such plants shall be no smaller than in 15 gallon containers, or equivalent. The landscaping shall not form a hedge like screen but be offset. The height of any new trees and shrubs, to be planted in conjunction with this project, shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the structures, which they are screening. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water - wise and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18of the RHMC). T. The southerly property line, setback and easement lines and the westerly roadway easement and front setback lines, along the limits of the project, shall be staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. U. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. V. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. W. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. X. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within the unimproved roadway easements on the east side of Pine Tree Lane adjacent to project site only, and shall not obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. Y. 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. Z. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_ definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. AA. 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) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 7 • • property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. AB. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and certifications, including certifications of ridgelines of the structures, shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOYI ED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016. BEA DIERINGER, MA A 1'1'EST: *666 HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 8 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1188 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A SHE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, DETACHED GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, STABLE, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE, DETACHED GARAGES, AND STABLE WITH LOFT; AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED MAXIMUM PERMITTED AVERAGE HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERM1'1"1'ED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 901 AT 5 PINE TREE LANE, (LOT 94- RH), (SHARNG). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the City Council on August 22, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices (VA kw HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1188 - 5 Pine Tree Lane 9 'a 4 • WED AUG 1 7 2016 City of Rolling Hills By City of Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 17, 2016 • Keith Murphy 3 Pine Tree Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Council Members, I wanted to thank you sincerely for considering the appeal of Zoning Case 901 at the City Council's meeting of August 8, 2016. I appreciate the acceptance of the appeal and the time spent in discussion of the issues, and wanted to submit some further thoughts as the Council considers the resolution language being considered at the meeting on August 22, 2016. The basis for my appeal was that during its consideration of the proposal, the Planning Commission improperly failed to consider or address my objections to the project, citing for example in the minutes that "It was noted that Keith Murphy is not a property owner". Because of this, the input of a key stakeholder was not heard in the planning process, and the hearing of an appeal was appropriate. I truly appreciate you taking the time to hear out my points for consideration on the issuing of variances for the project. As you can expect, it brings significant harmony to any development scenario to have all parties feel as though they have been heard, and I thank you for hearing out my concerns. In regard to a final decision, the Council voted to request resolution language for consideration, such language to be presented for a vote on Aug. 22 at the Council's regular meeting. I'm hopeful that the Councilmembers upon reviewing this language recall a point I raised during the discussion on August 8. As required by 17.38.050, the City Council to permit the variance must find that "the granting of such variance will not be... injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." My key worry, of course, is that the project as approved by the Planning Commision might be injurious to my property or improvements thereon. However, the approval of resolution language that finds that this project will not be injurious in any way is a guarantee that I feel comfortable relying on, because the standard it sets is so high. Such a finding is not, for example, a finding that the project will probably not be injurious, or a finding that the project most likely will not be injurious, but rather that with certainty it will not be injurious. Such a finding confirms that the Council is confident and is not relying on future protections such as midstage reviews to assure no injury, but is fully affirming at this stage that injury is not a possible outcome. I can put my full faith in such a finding and welcome the closure it provides. The resolution language should also meet another standard in 17.38.050, whereby the City Council find that "such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights". Similar to the guarantee of no injury, this finding would be very reassuring and can be relied on, because it represents that the City Council fully considered all alternative • • options to achieve such preservation and enjoyment, including presumably reviewing in full alternative options or requesting such review from the Planning Commission. As a further point, I wanted to express my appreciation that during our discussion Mayor Dierenger was able to confirm that the language in Condition J of the approval was drafted by the City Attorney to have the twin effect of guaranteeing full access along the existing driveway to 3 Pine Tree Lane in on an ongoing basis as well as barring construction access to 5 Pine Tree Lane via the shared driveway during the project. Finally, I wanted to laud the City Council for its focus on the relevant issues during these matters. Although a number of false narratives and irrelevant points were made in opposition to the acceptance of an appeal and during its consideration, these were appropriately rejected by the Council members. In particular, for the Council to give any merit to an argument that a property owner felt "worked over" by the Planning Commission already and thus shouldn't face an appeal or further delay would serve to invite future purposely overambitious construction requests to give buffer against appeal. The fact that a highly unreasonable initial plan was proposed which initiated strongly worded objections from many parties (Tony Podell, former owner of 3 Pine Tree; myself; and indeed from the Planning Commission itself) and required hard work by the Planning Commission to rein in should not impact the clear-eyed review of the remaining issues. It is my opinion that the Council properly focused away from such irrelevant matters. The City Council focused instead on dealing with the state of the current proposal and the remaining required variances, which the Council will now move forward to determine the risk of when it considers the resolution at hand. If the council now affirms that there is no risk of injury to my property, I cannot be anything but satisfied with that as an outcome of the appeal. Thank you, Sincerely, /64 1145 Keith Murphy • Cry opeoff,.S_All August 10, 2016 Mr. Keith Murphy 3 Pine Tree Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: APPEAL - ZONING CASE NO. 901 Dear Mr. Murphy: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 This letter is to notify you that the City Council at their regular meeting on August 8, 2016 considered your appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in Zoning Case No. 901, 5 Pine Tree Lane and following a public hearing and discussion voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting on Monday, August 22, 2016. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. The staff report and the draft resolution with conditions of approval and the minutes of the meeting, if completed, will be forwarded to you on Friday, August 19th. I hope you found the appeal process fair and impartial. The City Council's decision is final. Any further appeals would need to be filed with the court of law. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincellely, Yo1 1ta Schwartz Planning Director Printed on Recycled Paper • Wednesday, August 3, 2011:34600Matcitkc Rayligl,jime Subject: Letter to City Council Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 9:07:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: lauren <sharngla@me.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> By CC: Tavisha Nicholson<tnicholson@boltonengineering.com>, Chris Sharng <sharngch@me.com> Dear City Council Members, AUG 0 3 2016 City of Rolling Hills I'm sorry that I am not in town to represent my project. After knowing that I have secured approvals from the Planning Commission (4-0) and the City Council (5-0), I took my son on a High School graduation trip. My husband, Chris Sharng, Bolton Engineering and Tony Inferrera will all be in attendance for the public hearing on August 8, 2016. I wanted to provide a quick recap on the events since Mr. Murphy of 3 Pine Tree has been involved. I want to emphasize that Mr. Murphy has never given me a chance to speak to him as a neighbor. He has just shot off emails, appealed to the City and hired engineers to second guess my project and the Planning Commission's thorough work, all without having one conversation with me. • • • • May 17, 2016 - Keith Murphy, a prospective buyer of 3 Pine Tree Lane, emailed the City 7 hours before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The email categorically objects to every aspect of our proposed project and basically our right to legally build a residence on our property. Mr. Murphy did not attend the meeting but Mr. Anthony Podell, the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time was in attendance and endorsed our project, which was approve 4-0 by the Planning Commission. June 21, 2016 - Mr Murphy, by now the owner of 3 Pine Tree, emailed the City 4 hours before the Planning Commission meeting. This time he asked that the Planning Commission delay their vote so that he could review our plans for 5 Pine Tree. Again, Mr. Murphy was not in attendance for the meeting. The Planning Commission rejected Mr. Murphy's request as he didn't object to anything specifically. He only asked for more time to review the project. And he had already had since at least May 17, 2016 to review the project, which is more than a reasonable amount of time. June 28, 2016 - Wanting to be neighborly and civil, I emailed Mr. Murphy and offered to have my Engineers and Architect meet with him so that he could feel comfortable with the project and we could all avoid an appeal. (I forwarded all the email correspondence between us to Yolanta so you should have a copy, and Mr. Murphy requested Saturday, July 9, 2016, which we complied with but then said he had to go out of town.) I was not able to set another meeting with Mr. Murphy. July 21, 2016 - Mr. Murphy filed an appeal, on the very last day possible. August 1, 2016 - Mr. Murphy informed my that he hired Palos Verdes Engineering to address his concerns on my project. First of all, I would just like to state that, having built 3 houses before, 1 have no prior experience in getting into any kind of disputes with neighbors. Now I find myself scrambling to deal with this barrage of attacks from Mr. Murphy, who claims that his busy life and timing of the purchase entitles him to repeatedly blindside me and delay my project onto his timetable. I am really saddened that the project has to be dragged in front of the City. Page 1 of 2 • s The process with Planning took over 4 months. Our original plans had a house that was 1,000 sq. ft. larger. We initially asked for a larger pool, more patios and a tennis court. We already conceded many items that we significantly cared about. The Planning Commission isn't a rubber stamp. They did not cut us any slack and utterly worked us over, as is their thankless duty. They studied the plans and agreed with us on some items and disapproved others. We have made a lot of concessions during this intensive review process and thorough due diligence was done by the Planning Commission and my team of Engineers/Geologists. At the end, I am happy with the result and impressed by the process. Obviously, I don't want Mr. Murphy's house or my house sliding clown the hill, and everyone involved has fulfilled their responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen. Mr. Murphy was aware of my project no later than May 17, 2016 (per the email he sent the City). If he was so concerned about the variances that were granted and his house sliding down the hill, he simply should have extended his own escrow and done his due diligence on his own time. Instead, he has shifted the time burden to me. Now I am paying for two properties in Rolling Hills and can't start construction on my Pine Tree property. Mr. Murphy's unneighborly and unpredictable whims have impacted my ability to enjoy and use my property, the quality of my life (my daughter is sleeping in a den) and has had a huge financial impact on our family. Mr. Murphy was not the legal owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time the Planning Commission approved my project, nor did he have to close escrow given that the project was approved. I question whether Mr. Murphy has the legal right to appeal since he wasn't the owner of 3 Pine Tree at the time of the Planning Commission's approval. Furthermore, on June 21, 2016, when Mr. Murphy was the legal owner, he only asks for more time to review the project. He never objected to the variances. It is my understanding that an objection needs to be made during the Planning Commission stage and can't be a new claim in the appeal. For all the reasons above, Mr. Murphy's appeal should be rejected. One of many reasons I want to live in Rolling Hills is that I have horses and very much enjoy the equestrian atmosphere. We are very fortunate to have over 5 acres but they are not 5 flat acres and the variances were granted so that my horses would have a flat area and not break a leg on the steep hillside. As a lifelong equestrian, I very much want to maintain the rural nature of Rolling Hills. I think that my project adds to the appeal of the City. Former owners had pursued splitting the lot into two parcels and we are certainly not interested in doing that. We are building this house to live in and enjoy our horses, hopefully for a very long time. I am grateful for your considerations. Respectfully, Lauren Sharng Page 2 of 2 r_ • From: lauren Date: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:14 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz Cc: Chris Sharng , Tavisha Nicholson Subject: Fwd: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree RECE1V E- JUL 2 5 2016 City of Rolling hills By Hi Yolanta, Since Keith Murphy filed an appeal, I would like to forward the following correspondence to you regarding the multiple attempts I have made to have my team meet with Mr. Murphy. As you can see below, I reached out to him on June 28th, 2016 and he requested a meeting on Saturday, July 9th, which my team agreed to. He never confirmed the meeting and I had to email him again, however, when he responded he was no longer available on July 9th. He gave me a few other dates in the future, one of which was July 22nd, but yet again, he never confirmed and sent me an email July 21 st asking if we were still meeting. But at this point, he had already filed an appeal. I will also be sending a formal letter for the City Council Members to be included in their meeting material. Thank you, Lauren Sharng Begin forwarded message: From: <kemurphAearthlink.net> Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree Date: July 25, 2016 at 11:15:46 AM PDT To: lauren <sharnglaAmsn.com> Reply -To: <kemurphAearthlink.net> Lauren, I filed an appeal just to have a little more time to engage here. I'm sorry that we couldn't connect prior to this but I'm eager to engage prior to the appeal date and make sure we see eye to eye. I'm certainly not against your project, the timing of everything was just off with me moving in right in the middle of everything and not having been able to engage in the normal process from the beginning. Can we set a time to get together soon? is there any chance you can meet on Saturday (this Sat, July 30)? Keith Page 1 of 3 • • Original Message From: Iauren Sent: Jul 21, 2016 7:31 PM To: "kemurphCa)earthlink.net" Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree Hi Keith, I'm just arriving from CDG. I have a screaming case of bronchitis and need to see my dr in the AM. I'll have to touch base with you later tmrw. My best, Lauren Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:30 AM, "kemurph(c�earthlink.net" wrote: Lauren, First thing works for me because I have a full work day as well. I would prefer 8am but 9am is possible if your folks can't do that... Keith Original Message From: Iauren Sent: Jul 6, 2016 10:44 AM To: "kemurph(a�earthlink.net" Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree Hi Keith, July 22nd works. Since it is a Friday, we don't have to do first thing in the morning. Would around loam work? Thank you, Lauren On Jul 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, <kemurph(a�earthlink.net> wrote: Sorry, I now have a work -related change of schedule. I can't do the 9th now, I have to be on a trip. Would the following weekend work for you, preferably on the 17th, or perhaps the week of the 18th - I could do first thing in the morning (whatever that equates to for the team, I can do 6a or later) the 18th, 21 st, or 22nd. Keith Page 2 of 3 • • Original Message From: Iauren Sent: Jul 4, 2016 9:16 AM To: "kemurphearthlink.net" Subject: Re: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree Hi Keith, Does the proposed meeting work for you? I have to let my team know tomorrow so they can plan. Thank you, Lauren On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Iauren sharng <sharngla(c�msn.com> wrote: Hi Keith, July 9th is a bit challenging for my team but everyone can accommodate that date if we are able to do it first thing in the morning. Would 8am work for you? If that is amenable, do you want to meet at your home or at my site? My senior engineer recently had open heart surgery and he can't stand for long periods of times so perhaps we could review the plans at your house and then take a field trip with another engineer and my architect. Thank you, Lauren On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:43 PM, <kemurph(�earthlink.net> wrote: Lauren, Thanks for reaching out. The best time for me to meet would be 7/9, could they do it then? Thanks! Keith Original Message From: Keith Murphy Sent: Jun 28, 2016 11:32 AM To: "kemurph(c�alum.mit.edu" Subject: FW: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree From: Lauren Sharng [mailto:sharngla©msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:31 AM To: Keith Murphy <KMurphv(cr�organovo.com> Subject: Meeting for 5 Pine Tree Dear Keith, Would you be available to meet with my architect and engineer this week or next week to address your questions on our project? I look forward to our meeting. My best, Lauren Page 3 of 3 s s City o M?., INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 July 22, 2016, Mr. Keith Murphy Ms. Lauren Sharng 3 Pine Tree Lane 5 Pine Tree Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Murphy and Ms. Sharng, On July 21, 2016, a timely appeal was filed with the City of Rolling Hills with regard to the decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. 2016-15 concerning Zoning Case No. 901 at 5 Pine Tree Lane. Per Section 17.54.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the appeal shall be set for a hearing before the City Council to occur within 45 days of the filing of the appeal. In accordance with the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the appeal is scheduled to be heard at a public hearing before the City Council at its meeting of August 8, 2016. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Please note that per Section 17.54.060(B-C), the review hearing shall be conducted as a de novo hearing that provides the City Council with the authority to uphold, overturn or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action; or remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or Yolanta Schwartz at 310-377-1521. Sincerely, cARliaticcce) Heidi Luce City Clerk HL 07-22-16Appeal_ZC 9015 Pine Tree.docx c: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Mayor and City Council L.� Printed on Recycled Paper • fcruv ,eetei Rolleaf 'We& APPLICATION FILE NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER: REQUEST FOR APPEAL 20 V) JUL 21 2016 City of Rolling Hills By INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Cos, ./lp. W/ `CZAG&N th1( $2?Y Let cJPer, Lrj I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) forrthe following reasons: `LhS� �' `-`-� �l GI B G /(2-4-r, 14 co Lre lot/ N--Per'eliC-0--; SIGNED: DRIED: FEE: (Two-thirds of original application fee.) • City of Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Keith Murphy 3 Pine Tree Lane Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 July 21, 2016 To whom it may concern, In regard to Zoning Case No. 901, I hereby appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve. During its consideration of the proposal, the Planning Commission improperly failed to consider or address my objections to the project. See meeting minutes "It was noted that Keith Murphy is not a property owner". However, there is no requirement for property ownership or residency to raise an objection. Further, as I was in escrow at the time on the adjacent property at 3 Pine Tree Lane, I had and continue to have a legitimate interest in objecting to the proposal. The City has a compelling interest to allow an appeal and another review cycle. The City's planning process has evolved over time to allow for full discourse prior to moving forward on a project. Such a process provides greater assurance of discussion, compromise and harmony among property owners, avoiding potential costly legal battles for them and for the City. Such full discourse and careful consideration of all interested parties should not fall victim to a false requirement for property ownership to raise objections nor simply to a mismatch between property acquisition timing and the initial Planning Commission review process. The City provides for careful notice requirements during planning to allow all parties to come to the table for a full and thorough discourse. Due to timing issues that has not happened in this case but can happen with an appeals process where the objections are properly considered. The proposal requires variances for both average retaining wall height and overall excavation and recompaction, both of which I object to. This includes a retaining wall two times the normally allowed average height 25 feet from the property line with my property on a very steep slope. The Planning Commission recommended approval without a full consideration of the potential implications to stability of the hillside, and instability would greatly impact my property a short distance away. A fuller review of these issues by the City Council is necessary. Sincerely, Keith Murphy %-fr ri%-a/AL City'0/ CALIFORNIA RECEIVED FROM VA). ffih II) 11 ,r.ir ill -4 THE SUM OF tin P., •111 MI c(A,n (111 ,,' . , .. r7 im), FOR ,"IPLck.,,m,A., i— t, '-'1 I, i , WV , • t ,.. i P. t..sf, (;) ,f; / 11 V '-‘ ,9 1.1111, DATE No4�72 f hi .; rtPl‘ I 1 r"),a ti FUND AMOUNT CITY CLERK • WELLS FARGO BANK, •::-: • ..: ::: ,,,, : SORRENTO MESA 9276: SCRANTON RD':''SAN piEpo, CA 92121 : :, ::i :': :: 1 ' - '.:•-•..: ' : ATE 2.t j O. t)./ 20 I 4 : .' • . ::: ::: :, . 162411229 , :•:' : .• PAY TO THE ORPER OF I $ / Er-33. KETH E MURPHY AMANDA W MUIPHY 3 PINE TREE LN ROLLING HILLS CA 90274-5012 1003 (.77:DOLLARS • "::/ .••• " • • ..,""