Loading...
824 & 862 (formally 745), New garage, electrical room, p, Staff Reports4 — • • f ailRal&s, qeek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 10/12/15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR tp THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 862 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1180: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). BACKGROUND 1. At the March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172 granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, referred to as deferred items, as follows: 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Request to keep the steeper than allowed slopes in the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). 2. Following several public hearings and two field trips members of the City Council at their August 24, 2015 meeting by a 3-2 vote directed staff to bring a Resolution approving the two outstanding requests. The City Council directed the applicant to submit a detailed landscaping plan that would address screening of the entire site at all times; and specifically the rear slope, the retaining wall, the basement walls and the stairs to the basement from Outrider Road and from the neighbors to the north-west. In addition, Council members requested that the landscaping plan provide for replacement of trees should the existing trees die; list the type of new ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • planting and show their placement in a manner that they would not grow into a hedge like screen and would not grow into neighbors' views of the harbor and other scenic vistas. Members of the City Council also requested that a condition be placed on the approval requiring that from the onset the plants be large and that the applicant deposit with the City a landscaping bond to be held by the City to up to five -years in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor, material and irrigation), plus 15% of the cost. The bond would be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping is in good conditions and meets the intent of the resolution. 3. The applicant submitted a landscaping plan and at the September 14, 2015 City Council meeting councilmembers requested that the plan be reviewed by City's consulting landscape specialist to determine if it meets the intent of Council's direction. The City's consultant reviewed the landscaping plan and made several suggestions, most of which were incorporated into the new plans submitted with this report. Specifically she suggested the following: 1. Re -study quantities of proposed plants in relationship to their size. Due to the proposed size, in order to allow the roots to be established for each plant, there may not be a need for so many plants. Applicant changed quantities. 2. Verify that Myoporum plants come in 5-gallon container Applicant confirmed and changed to different Myoporum plants. 3. Slope above the residence is very steep; some plants such as roses may not be appropriate as they require frequent maintenance and would be hard to access on the slope. Also, roses are not drought tolerant plants. Applicant changed to drought tolerant plants- Dwarf Coyote bush. 4. Amend 3rd paragraph in condition "D" of the Resolution to require replacement of trees such as Peppers to be 60" box and tress like Ficus to be 24" box. Changed in Resolution and on plan. 5. Do not require replacement of Eucalyptus trees, if they die. Require replacement with a different tree of applicant's choice. Changed in Resolution and on plan 6. Remove all reference on this landscaping plan to a previously prepared plan by Blue -Door Garden. Applicant removed. 7. Staff requested that the applicant show on the plan the existing trees to be removed, and label them as such. Applicant is shozving the 3 Eucalyptus trees to be removed. 8. Staff also suggested that the applicant add plants to screen the court from Outrider Road and plant ground cover on the island between the two driveway aprons on 38 Eastfield; but not in the roadway easement and obtain permission from the neighbors to plant there. Applicant shozving plants on the plan. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive I • • Staff also requested confirmation of the location of the septic tank system. The system is to be located as per the grading plan. The Landscaping plan had the roadway easement line plotted incorrectly. 4. There already exist planting along the north and south property lines, in the side easements. Since the last City Council meeting, the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Baer, brought to staff's attention that it is not clear whose easement the trees are located in. The RHCA Board minutes indicate that Mr. Tonsich planted them in about 2003. In 2008 the RHCA considered those trees for approval in the easement but because the owners of 38 Eastfield thought the frees were located on their property, the Board held the issue on the agenda with a direction to the Baers to apply for a license agreement, if indeed they are located on their property. The Baers indicated to the Board that they would like the trees to remain there as they provide a barrier between the properties and that they would apply for the license agreement. At the Board's meeting Mr. Tonsich stated that the survey stakes might have been moved and that the trees could be located as much as 12" on his property. However, no action was taken since that time, but both property owners agree that the tress should remain. The City Council may not require vegetation in an easement if it has not been "finaled" at the RHCA level. Therefore, staff added a condition to the Resolution of approval that if the trees are to remain in the easement between 38 and 40 Eastfield, the owner of said easement is to apply for and record a license agreement. If a license is not applied for and/or granted and recorded prior to obtaining a final inspection of the project, then similar trees are to be planted outside the easement on the Tonsich's property. Mr. Tonsich included a letter agreeing to obtain a license agreement so that the trees could remain there. 5. The enclosed Resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions, including conditions stated above. As for the landscaping bond, the condition requires that staff review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in the resolution, a portion of the bond would be refunded; then three years later staff would visit the site again to determine the condition of the landscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded if it were determined that the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1180, as amended for landscaping conditions, approving the request at 40 Eastfield Drive. The conditions of approval specified in Resolution No. 1172, previously adopted approving the majority of the modifications, continue to apply to this project as a whole. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OCT.02.2015 03:40 RECEIVED 10/02!2015 16:15 3103777288 ROLLING HIILS CITY #2545 P.001 /002 • • Nicholas & Angela Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 541-8678 •p [ 1,== ci7F : t' k P: 1 f OCT 02 2015 City of Rolling Hills October 2, 2015 By VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & FACSIMILE (310) 377-7288 Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling hills, California 90274 RE: Ficus Trees Between 38 and 40 Eastfield Dear Yolanta: This letter will serve as a response to the issue you brought to my attention today concerning an issue raised by the Baers that they are of the opinion that some of the ficus trees that sit between our two properties may be on their property. Prior to April 3, 2008, three to four large eucalyptus trees existed along the property line between my property and the Baers' property. The Baers felt that the trees blocked their solar panels. 1 had the trees removed and replanted ficus trees along my side o1' the property line pursuant to a staking of the property line by Bolton Engineering. The Baers did not contribute any money towards this project. I did not realize that removing one tree and planting another tree in the same location required additional permission from the R}ICA. I subsequently requested a license for the new ficus trees. The Bacrs were present during the field trip by the RHCA Board. In fact, you recited to me from the Minutes of the April 3, 2008, Field Trip//Board Meeting that the Baers had no objection to the ficus trees whatsoever. 00 RECEIVED 10/b1/1111b lb:1b :;IU ///'1bd t-'ULL1N'a 1'i11L5 t.11Y #2545 P.002 /002 OCT.02.2015 03:40 • Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director CITY OF ROLLING HILLS October 2, 2015 Page 2 Bolton Engineering staked the property line when the trees were planted. At the April 30, 2008, Field Trip, some of the stakes had been knocked over and it looked like potentially a few of the trees may have been on the Baers' property. Evidently, the Baers have never verified if any of the trees are on their property. I spoke with the RHCA today and they preliminarily confirmed that the ficus trees were approved to be planted in the easement but requested that the license he perfected. I will ensure that the license with the RHCA is completed as a condition of the City Council resolution. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, NiI.1'onsich NGT:kal cc: Dan & Chiyoko Baer Ross Bolton, Bolton Engineering • • RESOLUTION NO. 1180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In August 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify a previously approved project, approved in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. In August 2014, the applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally approved project. The request for modification included additional grading above the residence, additional grading and not to exceed 5' high wall along the south side of the residence, where the wall would encroach up to 9 feet into the side yard setback, two additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the garage by two feet and re -grading the previously approved driveways, additional not to exceed 3' high retaining wall along the re -graded driveway, depressing the basement floor for a wine cellar, reducing the size of the swimming pool to accommodate the requested porches so that the structural coverage of the lot is maintained at less than 20%, relocating the service yard, constructing outside stairs to the basement from the house level, constructing an electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocating the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbance of the lot, and re -construction of the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road) which would exceed 2:1 grade. Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 22 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. 40 Eastfield Drive o • • Section 4. Following Planning Commission approval of the request in Zoning Case No. 862, the City Council at its January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings. Section 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 9, 2015 in the field and at its regularly scheduled meetings on February 9, 2015 and March 9, 2015. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 29, 2015. 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, including City engineers, neighbors and applicant's engineer and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road and 12 Outrider Road. Section 6. On March 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172, which granted partial approval of the requested Site Plan Review and Variance but deferred a final decision on: 1) Variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade and 2) Site Plan Review approval of stairs providing access to the electrical room (collectively referred to as the "Deferred Items"). The City Council requested that the applicant take the following actions prior to its rendering a decision on the Deferred Items: A. Work with the appropriate County personnel to identify alternative methods of grading that would bring the rear slope as close to 2:1 grade as possible, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. B. Identify alternative methods of access to the electrical room that would eliminate the proposed stairs, including alternate grading, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. Section 7. The City Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. Additionally, this portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre - construction state. Therefore, a Variance for these slopes is not required. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance in this area for slopes greater than 2:1 is required. The applicant has also demonstrated that historically there were two level pads close to the rear roadway easement line and they may be retained; one to be used for septic tank and seepage pits and one for a set aside area for a future stable and corral. This set aside area may be used as play area but shall not be paved in any manner including soft laid pavers or enclosed by a fence. The City Council finds that the proposed modification 40 Eastfield Drive 2® • • to the stairs from the previously approved plan is minor, the stairs will be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. Therefore, the City Council approves the Deferred Items subject to the conditions set forth herein. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the City to require a Site Plan Review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a Site Plan Review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. This project received such a condition during previous reviews of the development. The Deferred Items include Site Plan Review for modification of the stairs providing access to the electrical room, for which 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 modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is minor, the stairs will be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. With the conditions, the proposed project will be screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will occur largely on an existing building pad, 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 permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. C. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the modifications to the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. 40 Eastfield Drive 3 0 • • D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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 proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 10. The Deferred Items include a variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the RHMC 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 RHMC would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for a slope steeper than 2:1 grade, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the property historically contained steep and varied slopes. Specifically, the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. This portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre -construction state. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 for consistency with the existing slopes on the property and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance is required because the resulting slopes will be steeper than 2:1. The grading of the slopes is necessary to accommodate the relocated service yard and the lowering of the garage and driveways, in order to retain the previously approved 5' high retaining wall along that portion of the building pad. The additional grading at the south side of the residence (in the side yard setback) is necessary to allow for a walkway around the residence, as it is required by the Zoning Code. The grading complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 15.04.130. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the additional grading is necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre -construction state. 40 Eastfield Drive 4 • • C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles as well as provide a flat area on the side of the residence. D. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The steeper slopes requested are necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre -construction state, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant, as the grading is necessary to comply with the city's requirements and grading standards of the Building Code. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facility at issue in this case. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby grants approval of the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 862 described as Deferred Items in Resolution No. 1172, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. Except as specified, this resolution does not alter the approvals set forth in Resolution No. 1172 and all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 1172 continue to apply to the subject property. If any conditions of approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. The project subject to this Resolution, (the deferred items), shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department stamp dated August 5, 2015. 40 Eastfield -LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS 40 Eastfield Drive 5 II • • D. Two copies of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for the property shall be submitted to the City. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Further, the landscaping shall be designed using large size vegetation from the onset and they shall be of a type so as not to grow into views from neighboring properties but to obscure to the maximum extend practicable the residence, the parking area the light well walls, the rear stairs, the retaining wall and the rear slopes from the neighbors and from Outrider Road. The trees and shrubs, when grown, shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. At planting time all shrubs and trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon in size or larger, and all ground cover or small bushes shall be no smaller than 5 gallon in size or equivalent. The placement of any new vegetation shall be in such a manner as to not grow into a living screen or a hedge, and must be off set. Should the existing trees die, the applicant shall be required to immediately replace such trees with a minimum of 60" box tree or equivalent to assure that the property is screened at all times. If any of the Ficus trees die, they are to be replaced with a like tree not less than 24" box. Should such trees be located in the RHCA easement, RHCA review and approval shall be required. E. If the Ficus trees are to remain in the easement between 38 and 40 Eastfield, the owner of said easement shall apply to the RHCA and record a license agreement. If a license is not applied for and/or granted and recorded prior to obtaining a final inspection of the project, then similar trees are to be planted outside the easement on the Tonsich's property to screen the project from Outrider Road and from the neighbors at 38 Eastfield. F. The applicant shall post with the City a landscaping bond or equivalent instrument to be held to up to five -years from the time of planting in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor, material and irrigation), plus 15% of the cost, to be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and meets the intent of the resolution. Staff shall review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in this resolution, a portion of the bond would be refunded; then three years later staff shall inspect the site again to determine the condition of the landscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval. G. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, or the approval shall not be effective. H. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. 40 Eastfield Drive 6 is • 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2015. JEFF PIEPER, MAYOR 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. 40 Eastfield Drive • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1180 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). . was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK 40 Eastfield Drive 6e-r azi A'aik;t9 geal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 09/14/15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR% THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER f APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 862 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1180: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). BACKGROUND At the March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172 granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, referred to as deferred items, as follows: 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Request to keep the steeper than allowed slopes in the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). Following several public hearings and two field trips members of the City Council at their August 24, 2015 meeting by a 3-2 vote directed staff to bring a Resolution approving the two outstanding requests. The City Council directed the applicant to submit a detailed landscaping plan that would address screening of the entire site at ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • all times; and specifically the rear slope, the retaining wall, the basement walls and the stairs to the basement from Outrider Road and from the neighbors to the north-west. In addition, the landscaping plan is to provide for replacement of trees should the existing trees die; list the type of new planting and show their placement in a manner that they would not grow into a hedge like screen and would not grow into neighbors' views of the harbor and other scenic vistas. Members of the City Council also requested that a condition be placed on the approval requiring that from the onset the plants be large and that the applicant deposit with the City a landscaping bond to be held by the City to up to five -years in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor, material and irrigation), plus 15% of the cost. The bond would be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping is in good conditions and meets the intent of the resolution. There already exist planting along the north and south property lines, in the side easements that were approved by the RHCA. Those plants will remain and currently screen the properties to the north, north-west and south. The existing trees along Outrider Road roadway easement were also approved by the RHCA and will remain. Therefore, the condition that trees be not planed so they grow into a hedge would apply to any new plants. The enclosed Resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions, including conditions stated above. As for the landscaping bond, the condition requires that staff review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in the resolution, a portion of the bond would be refunded; then three years later staff would visit the site again to determine the condition of the landscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded if it were determined that the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1180 approving the request at 40 Eastfield Drive with the stated conditions. The conditions of approval specified in Resolution No. 1172, previously adopted approving the majority of the modifications, continues to apply to this project as a whole. Should the landscaping plan, as submitted, not address the Council's direction, you may continue this case to a future date. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive ` . • RESOLUTION NO. 1180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In August 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify a previously approved project, approved in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. In August 2014, the applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally approved project. The request for modification included additional grading above the residence, additional grading and not to exceed 5' high wall along the south side of the residence, where the wall would encroach up to 9 feet into the side yard setback, two additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the garage by two feet and re -grading the previously approved driveways, additional not to exceed 3' high retaining wall along the re -graded driveway, depressing the basement floor for a wine cellar, reducing the size of the swimming pool to accommodate the requested porches so that the structural coverage of the lot is maintained at less than 20%, relocating the service yard, constructing outside stairs to the basement from the house level, constructing an electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocating the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbance of the lot, and re -construction of the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road) which would exceed 2:1 grade. Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. 40 Eastfield Drive • • Section 4. Following Planning Commission approval of the request in Zoning Case No. 862, the City Council at its January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings. Section 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 9, 2015 in the field and at its regularly scheduled meetings on February 9, 2015 and March 9, 2015. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 29, 2015. 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, including City engineers, neighbors and applicant's engineer and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road and 12 Outrider Road. Section 6. On March 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172, which granted partial approval of the requested Site Plan Review and Variance but deferred a final decision on: 1) Variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade and 2) Site Plan Review approval of stairs providing access to the electrical room (collectively referred to as the "Deferred Items"). The City Council requested that the applicant take the following actions prior to its rendering a decision on the Deferred Items: A. Work with the appropriate County personnel to identify alternative methods of grading that would bring the rear slope as close to 2:1 grade as possible, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. B. Identify alternative methods of access to the electrical room that would eliminate the proposed stairs, including alternate grading, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. Section 7. The City Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. Additionally, this portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre - construction state. Therefore, a Variance for these slopes is not required. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance in this area for slopes greater than 2:1 is required. The applicant has also demonstrated that historically there were two level pads close to the rear roadway easement line and they may be retained; one to be used for septic tank and seepage pits and one for a set aside area for a future stable and corral. This set aside area may be used as play area but shall not be paved in any manner including soft laid pavers or enclosed by a fence. The City Council finds that the proposed modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is minor, the stairs will be in line with the light 40 Eastfield Drive 2 • • • well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. Therefore, the City Council approves the Deferred Items subject to the conditions set forth herein. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the City to require a Site Plan Review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a Site Plan Review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. This project received such a condition during previous reviews of the development. The Deferred Items include Site Plan Review for modification of the stairs providing access to the electrical room, for which 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 modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is minor, the stairs will be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. With the conditions, the proposed project will be screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will occur largely on an existing building pad, 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 permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. C. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the modifications to the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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. 40 Eastfield Drive • • E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 10. The Deferred Items include a variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the RHMC 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 RHMC would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for a slope steeper than 2:1 grade, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the property historically contained steep and varied slopes. Specifically, the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. This portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre -construction state. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 for consistency with the existing slopes on the property and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance is required because the resulting slopes will be steeper than 2:1. The grading of the slopes is necessary to accommodate the relocated service yard and the lowering of the garage and driveways, in order to retain the previously approved 5' high retaining wall along that portion of the building pad. The additional grading at the south side of the residence (in the side yard setback) is necessary to allow for a walkway around the residence, as it is required by the Zoning Code. The grading complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 15.04.130. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the additional grading is necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre -construction state. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the 40 Eastfield Drive 4 • • • driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles as well as provide a flat area on the side of the residence. D. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The steeper slopes requested are necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre -construction state, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant, as the grading is necessary to comply with the city's requirements and grading standards of the Building Code. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facility at issue in this case. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby grants approval of the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 862 described as Deferred Items in Resolution No. 1180, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. Except as specified, this resolution does not alter the approvals set forth in Resolution No. 1172 and all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 1172 continue to apply to the subject property. If any conditions of approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. The project subject to this Resolution, (the deferred items), shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department stamp dated August 5, 2015. D. Two copies of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for the property shall be submitted to the City. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Further, the landscaping shall be designed using large size vegetation from the onset and they shall be of a type so as not to grow into views from neighboring properties but to obscure to the maximum extend practicable the residence, the parking area the light well walls, the rear 40 Eastfield Drive 5 • • stairs, the retaining wall and the rear slopes from the neighbors and from Outrider Road. The trees and shrubs, when grown, shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. At planting time all shrubs and trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon in size or larger, and all ground cover or small bushes shall be no smaller than 5 gallon in size or equivalent. The placement of any new vegetation shall be in such a manner as to not grow into a living screen or a hedge, and must be off set. Should the existing trees die, the applicant shall be required to immediately replace such trees with a minimum of 64" box tree or equivalent to assure that the property is screened at all times. Should such trees be located in the RHCA easement, RHCA review and approval shall be required. E. The applicant shall post with the City a landscaping bond or equivalent instrument to be held to up to five -years from the time of planting in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor, material and irrigation), plus 15% of the cost, to be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and meets the intent of the resolution. Staff shall review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in this resolution, a portion of the bond would be refunded; then three years later staff shall inspect the site again to determine the condition of the landscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval. F. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, or the approval shall not be effective. G. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2015. JEFF PIEPER MAYOR A 1"1'EST: 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. 40 Eastfield Drive 6 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1180 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). . was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK 40 Eastfield Drive 7 ® r TO: • &4 al Raaw9 geela i INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 3-A Mtg. Date: 08/24/15 FT HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: Reports/Plan for Septic Tank RECOMMENDATION: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 1. It is recommended that the City Council view the staking of the rear slope in the field and determine if it meets the Council's intent and direction and continue the meeting to the evening meeting of the City Council of August 24, 2015 beginning at 7:30 PM, or provide other direction to staff. PRIOR DISCUSSION 2. On March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council by a vote 4-1, with Councilmember Hill objecting, adopted a Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40-Eastfield Drive of the requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, as follows: 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Re -grading of the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • The two items shown above were not approved and are referred to as "deferred items" in Resolution No. 1172, which was approved on March 23, 2015 and which granted various modifications to a previously approved project at 40 Eastfield Drive. 3. At the August 10, 2015 meeting the City Council, the applicant and his agent discussed the two items, which were not approved previously. Ross Bolton, Bolton Engineering addressed the City Council and made a power point presentation to show the historical data that was included in the staff report. He stated that the data indicates that the area where Mr. Tonsich's property is located was originally a steep canyon that was filled in when the area was originally developed. He stated that the evidence indicates that the slopes were originally steeper than 2:1 as shown when compared to the neighboring properties at 38 Eastfield Drive and 42 Eastfield Drive which also have steep slopes at the rear of their properties. He presented an aerial image that indicated that two level areas area at the bottom of the rear of the property existed when Mr. Tonsich purchased the property; and stated that Mr. Tonsich would like to retain those areas, one for the septic tank and one for future stable and corral. Location of the proposed septic tank was also discussed. Suggestion was made to relocate the leach field further north and up slope, so that the slope could be reconstructed to flatter than 1.5:1. Kit Bagnell, Los Angeles County Building and Safety was present at the meeting and in response to questions from the City Council, explained the background of the project stating that the previous plans reviewed by County engineers showed the slopes in the rear having steeper than 2:1 gradient and some were 1.5:1 slopes. He stated that he and his staff have reviewed the historical records presented by the engineer and they feel that from the information submitted a reasonable conclusion could be made that the slopes at 40 Eastfield were steeper than 1:2 and that the two level areas existed prior to when Mr. Tonsich purchased the property. 4. Enclosed with this report is correspondence that was previously submitted by the applicants in response to City Council questions regarding the septic tank location and the 2011 Health Dept. approved septic tank plan. The staff report provided to members of the City Council at their August 10, 2015 meeting is enclosed with the regular meeting staff report, which will be held after the field trip. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive COAST GE01411.2HNICAL, INC. • 1200 West Commonwealth_ Fullerton. CA 92833 ■ Ph: t7141870-1211 • Fax: (7141870-1222• email:coasteeoteaashcelubaLnet March 3, 2015 Mr. Nick Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ef W.O. 318606-12 MAR. 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills ay _ Subject: Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California Dear Mr. Tonsich: Pursuant to your request this addendum report has been prepared to address certain items within a February 11, 2015 letter from the City, for Zoning Case No. 862, and to address current proposed restoration/reconstruction of the rear descending slope. The project civil engineer has requested that we provide input on the following items from the February 9, 2015 City letter. Provide information reeardinrg the reasons for locating the septic tank in the proposed location. • Location of a septic system is dependent on the physical layout of the property and the subsurface conditions. Initially a location is chosen based on required setbacks as stated in Table K-1 of the UPC, the preference of having a gravity fed system, access to construct the system, and future access to service the system. As the project evolved over the years several stages of exploration and testing have been performed assessing different areas of the property for a septic system. The current location in the southern portion of the lower pad was selected as it complied with all setbacks, provided construction and future service access, met County guidelines for a .disposal system, and provided the location that was professionally opinioned to have the most favorable subsurface conditions. While the location of the septic tank can be moved, the actual seepage pits must be placed at the test locations shown on Figure 2 of our September 19, 2011 report. Substantiate the claim that there is water close to the surface in the area of the proposed stable set aside • Exploration by previous site consultants in this area found groundwater at 30 feet below ground surface. The project civil engineer has requested clarification on the current proposed grading scenario addressing the slope that descends below the rear of the residence and to provide comment on bedrock depth within the basement area. Restoration of rear descending slope Our understanding is that the current proposed plan is as follows: • Restore the lower pad area and lower slope area to original undisturbed grades and to reconstruct the upper slope area. Restoration of the lower slope area and lower pad will require removal of 0 COAST GEOT]•HNICAL, INC. • Mr. Tonsich 2 W. O.318606-12 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report March 3, 2015 stockpiled soils. Adequate removal can be verified by the civil though surveying and the soils engineer through visual observations. After removals the exposed surfaces would require minimal remedial grading for drainage and to improve slope surface conditions. The scope of remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading, but is anticipated to consist mostly of just track rolling finish grades. • A variable height MSE wall is then proposed in the upper slope area. Prior to wall construction some remedial grading of the existing level area that extends out from the basement level will be required. The scope of remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading. • After completion of remedial grading the MSE wall may be constructed and the area between the back of the MSE wall and basement wall backfilled and a 2:1(H:V) slope constructed. • Typical construction is depicted on our appended Revised Geologic Section A -A'. Actual construction will be dependent on a plan prepared by the project civil engineer. • This scenario is considered geotechnically acceptable, as are others. The fmal method chosen for restoration of the corral and rear slope area, and reconstruction of the upper slope area, will be dependent on issues outside the purview of the geotechnical consultant. • Final plans are subject to the review and approval of the soils engineer. Additional recommendations could be provided at that time. Bedrock death within the basement area Excavations for basement foundations were deepened as needed to comply with project geotechnical recommendations for bedrock embedment. The depth to bedrock varied across the site but generally deepened southeast to northwest and southwest to northeast. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 4.ee Todd D. CEG 19 r xp 04/16 Co TDDD D. HOUSEAL • o No.1914 e CERTIFIED N�' ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST � 9T6" C AL�FOQ, COAST GE011ikHNICAL, INC. • Mr. Tonsich 3 W. O. 318606-12 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Renort - March 3.2015 REFERENCES 1. Geologic Investigation of Proposed New Residence, #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-02, dated October 26, 2010. 2. Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-03, dated March 29, 2011. 3. Revised Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O.318606.04, dated July 13, 2011. 4. Report of Percolation Feasibility Study for Proposed Residence at #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-05, dated September 19, 2011. 5. As Built Rough Grade Geologic Report for #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-06, dated December 17, 2012. 6. Response to County Geologic Review Sheet for Proposed Garage Shoring and Caissons for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-07 dated December 22, 2013. 7. Acceptance of Geotechnical Responsibility and Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, Califomia; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-08, dated July 11, 2014. 8. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 9. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 10. Geotechnical Recommendations for Proposed Paving Stone Section for Proposed Driveway, 40 Eastfiled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-10, dated February 10, 2015. I1. Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastflled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-11, dated March, 2015. ... 1120 - East&Id . . 1100 --- 1080' • 1060 • • 1040 1020 • • 1000 - • a • ti Trn lEsistiog construction , Pro 2:1(11.N) slope Proposed MSE wifl Slows grade to be reestablisiked Ex. &dog deepened bedrock Tm Scale 1" 30ft. (R-V) • ; '7+-^ .• akstiii • 4• REVISED GEOLOGIC SECTION A -A! Estimated stockpile P/1.. V Outrider COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I W.O. 318606 Figure 2 e9ra. e ' f'1 fl ./ �.I P _rcolation Rates: f� TBI — 8375 gallons/clay or 32 gallons/soft/day TB2— 2150 gallons/day or 283 gallons/sq.ft./day TB3 - 8562 gallons/day or 114.7 gallons/sq.fllday T84 - 6250 gallons/day or 80.7 gallons/sq.ft./day one ern flick Ton+kl, laaant Nan ears ae Pfan. • 138 EASTFIFID DRNE R.S. 8K 58 PGs 6-10 90 442 EASTFIt7S1 ti3. eK 5a Pea 6-1 tar aZ SITE MAP W.e•M ,..Lw N••aea pr1ma17 system - V C� A u •l it Seale 1 —32ft troseptee FS12 t- Seepage pits 2, 3 and 4 are 5ft diameter by 18ft deep with a 5 ft np Seepaee pit 1 is 5t1 diameter by 41ft deep a th a `ft es,rl COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. uloaa • WORM 04441.41133 *MEM MUM 1fuS o SUM= 6) BEPR, C ujair i YLAH The approval shall be contingent upon the following: 1.) Crra ling plan shall be approved by Building and Safety Department 2.) The proposed system shall conform to the rough grading Approval by the County Geology Division of the Bolding and Safety as required for hillside properties 3.) All pertinent horizontal setback distances are to be maintained. 4.) The existing septic system shall be abandoned as per plumbing code. 5.) Any deviation of this sewage disposal plot plan and/or the floor plan on the reverse without prior Health Department approval shall nullify and void this approval. 6.) Call the Health Department prior to backfilling of septic tank. vis, c.4 ) Date io/31%o/ Method 'of Sewage Disposal Approved iNex C."aZt Health Officer APPROVAL VAU FOR ONE YEAR ENHANCED SYSTEM Requires installation inspection by Environmental Health prior to final approval. W.O. 318606 Figure 2 • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Oz? COAST GEOTEC H•CAL, INC.• .4? Artilia {;Ld.. Sttitc I' I:. hi \1tra S . C'A go6.1R I'h. t )4).•2i-t)1(+9f>f 0I41 ;?I-z:,- 1 aN.: 1,7I4) 321-11179 September 19, 2011 Mr. and Mrs. Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 W.Q. 318606-05 Subject: Report of Percolation Feasibility Study for Proposed Residence at 440 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California Mr. and Mrs. Tonsich: Submitted herewith is the percolation feasibility study performed for 440 Eastfield found in the Rolling Hills area of the County of Los Angeles. This report completes our work scope for the project outlined in our proposal dated August 16, 2011. PURPOSE The purpose of the percolation study is to determine if the subject site has sufficient area with suitable percolation, physiographic and geologic characteristics for construction of seepage pit onsite absorption system, in general accordance with County of Los Angeles guidelines. The proposed system is to service a new residence. PAST TTE STi' N G The site was previously tested for percolation in 2006 and the projected halted prior to a report being finalized. Since that time the project concept has changed, County testing guidelines have changed,, and the proposed residence has encroached into needed setbacks for seepage pits. The test borings placed are shown on the appended site plan as B1 through B4. Boring logs and percolation testing are attached in Appendix A. This data is attached as a County requirement and has not been utilized in preparation of this report. WORK SCOPE The project work scope consisted of the following: 1. Location of four borings drilled two feet in diameter to depths in compliance with guidelines. 2. Geologic logging of borings. 3. Presaturation and percolation testing of borings. 4. Analysis of data. 5. Preparation of this report. • COAST EJi EOTECH1\TCAL. INC Tonsich 2 W.O. 318606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September l9.2011 To facilitate compliance with the County of Los Angeles Guidelines, each County requirement is stated below followed by our statement. Item 1 Item 1 requests the location of the property including the legal description. • The site is identified as #40 Eastfiled Drive in the City of Rolling Hills, California, with APN 7567-003-050, and legal description ROS Book 58, pages 6-10, Lot 91. • The site is shown on a Vicinity Map appended as Figure 1. Item 2 Item 2 request the owner's name, address, and phone number. • The owners' name is Mr. and Mrs. Nick Tonsich, with the mailing address as shown on the cover page of this report. • The owner can be reached through their general contractor, Mr. Doug Moths, at 310-721- 4831 Item 3 Item 3 requests the type of proposed sewage system. • The existing residence is to be demolished and a new residence constructed. The new residence will be one story over basement. The new residence will dispose of effluent into a private sewage disposal system. 'The new system will consist of a septic tank with a five- foot diameter seepage pit(s). An advanced treatment system is anticipated to be required. The system will service a residence with five true bedrooms and one bedroom equivalent (basement sauna/spa) for a bedroom count of six. This interpretation of bedroom count was agreed on with the County Environmental Health representative, prior to testing. • The proposed septic tank and pit(s) will be located in a landscape area in a level yard 'area down slope of the proposed residence. Item 4. Item 4 requests description of the on -site materials. • Earth materials at the location of the seepage pits are composed of colluvium underlain by bedrock. Effluent will be disposed of into bedrock which is generally composed of tan white to urey interbedded diatomaceous siltstones, clayey siltstones, silty crivstorlcs, and sandstones with beds of fractured siliceous siltstone. Percolation rates ,:re anticipzitcd lc vary within the strata from vcry low :•lhes in the diatomaceous cht;:stciiles tU vory nigh rates Iti the fractured siliceous siltslenes. Appende(I "lp.11 es 2 and 3 show site conditions and a cross section. respcelt\ elv. Gcc:lt)g,C 102S ,',; th:• V�..1{,1.`itory :7C11':' u5 .:l presenied on Plates A thrc,11`J•', D. COAST V, E \J E CAT CAL, INC • Tonsich 3 W.O.315606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September l 9, 201 l Item 5 Item 5 requests a scaled grading plan. a. Figure 2 is a site plan that shows the property and proposed grading at a 1"= 32ft. scale. b. Figure 2 includes topography for the site. c. No hydrophytic plants or oak trees were observed in the vicinity of the proposed disposal pit(s). d. No wells, abandoned wells, or springs are present on the site. Drinking water will be from metered City service. e. No screams are located on the site. f. The percolation test boring locations are indicated on Figure 2. g. Bedrock outcrops were not observed in the vicinity of the test borings. h. The proposed residence and appurtenances are shown on Figure 2. i. The dimensions of the proposed septic tank and seepage pits are shown on Figure 2. Section A -A' is a geologic cross-section that indicates cap -off depth and any setback distances. j. The proposed septic tank will be located in a landscape area. By the County guidelines septic tank capacity is based on bedroom count only, k. Our interpretation of the project's bedroom count is six (five true bedrooms and one bedroom equivalent). The septic tank size required by code based on this bedroom count is 1500 gallons. Due to a high percolation rate an advanced treatment system will be required. The County requires that the advanced treatment system be capable of treating effluent based on bedroom count and to have adequate capacity. A bedroom count of six requires the system to be able to treat 1050 gallons of effluent per day. A MicroSeptec ES12 will service up to seven bedrooms, is able to treat 1200 gallons of effluent per day, and has a tank capacity of 3436 gallons, and is opinioned to comply with County requirements. A cross-section view of the ES12 septic tank and risers is attached as Figure 5. The client is advised that the recommended advanced septic tank is not the only type allowed by the County. Alternate advanced septic tanks are available and can be utilized provided they comply with all project and County requirements. To use an alternate tank portions of this report would need to be rewritten and a new site map prepared showing the selected advanced septic tank. 1. While testing indicates that one pit would be sufficient for both the primary and expansion system, our recommendation is that both the primary and expansion system utilize two seepage pits each. This conservative recommendation is based on performance of other systems in the area. A distribution box is needed for this project. m. TiTile area of 100% expansion is shown cm Figure 2. n. The project contractor shall provide dcctinientation of wa.s!iing o: any Her i—iterial (if used) by the supplier. COAST EoTEcr! CAL, INC Tonsich Report of Percolation Feasibility September 19, 2011, 4 W.O. 318606-05 o. Pertinent setback distances are indicated on Figure 2. Rem 6 Item 6 requests a copy of the approved grading plan. • Figure 2 is a copy of the site plan provided by the project civil engineer. Significant grade changes are not planned in the area of the proposed system. Item 7 Item 7 requests a historic high groundwater level determination. • Groundwater levels are known to vary in the area; as such, each boring was advanced to where water was encountered. The boring was then allowed to stand open at least 24hours and the water levels checked. In boring 1, water was encountered at 51 feet and stayed at 5) feet. In borings 2, 3 and 4 water was encountered at 31 feet and stabilized at 28 feet. Each boring was backfilled with eight feet of tamped soil and capped with two feet of concrete. The concrete was allowed to cure 24 hours prior to the presoak, • The difference in water depths is attributed to the waters being contained in perched groundwater zones separated by an aquiclude. Item 8 Item 8 requests a. floor plan of the building. • The floor plan showing room use that will contribute to the proposed disposal system is attached as Figure 4. 1 tem 9 item 9 requests a final county geologic review sheet' required by Building and Safety. a The status of approval by Building and Safety is unknown. Our reports found the proposed project feasible from a geologicperspective. • The client or his agent will need to provide the approval sheet from the Building and Safety to County Environmental Health. Item 10 Item 10 requests percolation test data a. Todd Houseal, a Certified Engineering Geologist, performed the percolation testing. b. Percolation testing was performed at the plotted locations shown on Figure 2. The percolation test borings consisted of 24" diameter boreholes. The boreholes were located at the approximate locations of the proposed seepage pits and the 100%, expansion its. The amount of water used to fill 'the boreholes was determined from a calibrated water meter. Calibration for the water meter is appended as Figure ;i, The water used during the percolation testing was obtained i`oin a tire hydrant located near 47 Cutricler. c. 'ffhe ; cquired presoak for TB 1 through TB4 was performed on September 6. 2011. Water \\'`i1S added to the 'horinu5 utilizing. a calibrated water meter. Waters \verc added 10 the COAST GEO _ EC•1-. III CAL, 1NC Tonsich 5 W.O. 318606-05 Retort of Percolation Feasibility September 19, 2011 proposed cap depth of five feet. The borings were dry 24 hours after the presoak. Presoak data is presented below. Boring No. Start meter End meter Presoak volume Time Water reading reading (gals) depth after 24hrs 1 1023550 1024500 950 8am-8:13 dry 2 1024500 1024875 375 8:14- 8:19 dry 3 1024875 1025475 600 8:22-8:31 dry 4 1025475 1025875 400 8:31-8:36 dry d. Percolation testing was performed on September 7, 2011. The County deems that percolation testing finds a minimum percolation rate of 0.83 gallons per square foot per day to be- present for seepage pits, that the seepage pit(s) can dispose of five times the volume of the required septic tank size over a 24 hour period, and that where the percolation rate exceeds 5.12 gallons per square foot per day an advanced treatment system that reduces the effluent nitrogen level be utilized. • Determination of a percolation rate was performed as follows. The County requires that the percolation rate of each seepage pit be determined by filling the test boring to the cap depth, and then at equal timed intervals over a period of eight hours add waters into the test borings filling the water level back to the cap depth each time. The amount of water percolated into the test boring over this time period is then utilized to determine the percolation rate of the test hole. Data obtained from thetesting is presented on Plates 1 through 4. Determination of percolation rates are presented on Plates 1 A, 2A, 3A and 4A. Test results from our percolation rate testing indicate a percolation rate of 32 .gallons per square foot per day for TB 1, 28.3 gallons per square foot per day for TB2, 114..7 gallons per square foot per day for TB3, and 80.7 gallons per square foot per day for TB4. Our field data and analysis shows an acceptable percolation rate for seepage pits, and that an advanced treatment system will be required. e, Testing of both the primary and expansion pit(s) must demonstrate that they can dispose of live times the capacity of the proposed septic tank (1500ga1s x 5=7500ga1s)). Calculations 'resented on Plates IA through 4A indicate that TBl and TB3 show adequate disposal as single pits and that TB2 and TB4 would require multiple pits. Based on the performance of other systems in he area. our opinion is that it is prudent to have both the primary and .secondary system utilixc two pits. Our recommendation is to utilize TB 1 and TB2 as the primary pits and TB3 and TB4 as the expansion pits, Test results show that combined T B1 and TB2 disposced of 1 1 06) gallcr s of \v .tei' and combined Tl33 and TB4 disposed of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC Tonsich 6 W.O.318606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September 19, 2011 14182 gallons of water, Both the primary and expansion pits demonstrate they can dispose of the required volume of water (7500ga1s). Our recommended cap -off depth for any seepage pit in the area of the testborings is a minimum of five feet below ground surface. We recommend that TBI be 41 feet total depth, drilled five-foot diameter with a five- foot cap and TB2, TB3 and TB4 be 18 feet total depth, drilled five-foot diameter with a five-foot cap. This recommendation is based on the proposed location of the seepage pits shown on Figure 2. f. Test data and calculations are appended on Plates 1 through 4 and Plates IA through 4A. Item 1I Item 11 requests a conclusion on the suitability of the site for the proposed system. Information obtained from the percolation testing indicates that a proposed on -site sewage disposal system is feasible for the subject site. Item 12 Item 12 requests a signed statement that this report presents an accurate and complete disclosure of all facts known relating to the proposed on -site sewage disposal system. • It is our opinion that this report presents an accurate and complete disclosure of all facts that are known and relate to the proposed on -site sewage disposal system. • The client is advised that an onsite sewage disposal system is considered temporary only with eventual failure and requirement for replacement with a new system. • Life expectancy of a system varies widely dependent on usage, construction and maintenance. Coast Geotechnical, Inc. makes no warranty or guarantee of the system or length of effectiveness. • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. shall be consulted if the system loads change from those anticipated; if the pit locations change significantly; if an alternate advanced treatment system is utilized and during pit construction so the holes may be down hole logged. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECI-INICAL, INC. .l'odd D. hcuscal CEG 1914 Exp =1l12 ED G TODD D. HOUSEAL No.1914 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST ' Op cAO' • rn�wry�,egqieF�i TO: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 08/24/15 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR f THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: August 10, 2015 Staff Report Report and Plan for septic tank RECOMMENDATION: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 1. The City Council held a field trip earlier today to view a mock-up of the proposed slopes at the rear of the residence. It is recommended that the City Council reconvene the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. Based on City Council's direction staff will bring an amended Resolution No. 1172, incorporating the decision of the City Council. Resolution 1172, approved on March 23, 2015 granted various modifications to the project; except those currently under consideration. PRIOR DISCUSSION 2. On March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council by a vote 4-1, with Councilmember Hill objecting, adopted a Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of the requested changes to the ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, as follows: 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Re -grading of the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). The two items shown above were not approved and are referred to as "deferred items" in Resolution No. 1172, which was approved on March 23, 2015 and which granted various modifications to a previously approved project at 40 Eastfield Drive. 3. At the August 10, 2015 meeting the City Council, the applicant and his agent discussed the two items, which were not approved previously. Ross Bolton, Bolton Engineering addressed the City Council and made a power point presentation to show the historical data that was included in the staff report. He stated that the data indicates that the area where Mr. Tonsich's property is located was originally a steep canyon that was filled in when the area was originally developed. He stated that the evidence indicates that the slopes were originally steeper than 2:1 as shown when compared to the neighboring properties at 38 Eastfield Drive and 42 Eastfield Drive which also have steep slopes at the rear of their properties. He presented an aerial image that indicated that two level areas area at the bottom of the rear of the property existed when Mr. Tonsich purchased the property; and stated that Mr. Tonsich would like to retain those areas, one for the septic tank and one for future stable and corral. Location of the proposed septic tank was also discussed. Suggestion was made to relocate the leach field further north and up slope, so that the slope could be reconstructed to flatter than 1.5:1. Kit Bagnell, Los Angeles County Building and Safety was present at the meeting and in response to questions from the City Council, explained the background of the project stating that the previous plans reviewed by County engineers showed the slopes in the rear having steeper than 2:1 gradient and some were 1.5:1 slopes. He stated that he and his staff have reviewed the historical records presented by the engineer and they feel that from the information submitted a reasonable conclusion could be made that the slopes at 40 Eastfield were steeper than 1:2 and that the two level areas existed prior to when Mr. Tonsich purchased the property. 4. Following the presentation and discussion, members of the City Council directed the applicant to stake the slope as it is proposed by the applicant and also stake an area of the slope at the south east side of the lot to a 2:1 gradient. A suggestion was made to relocate the leach field further northwest on the slope. Members of the City Council also requested that copies of the percolation tests and other documents relating to the septic tank be submitted for their review. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive Enclosed with this report is correspondence that was previously submitted by the applicants in response to City Council questions regarding the septic tank location and the 2011 Health Dept. approved septic tank plan. 5. For reference, attached is the staff report provided to members of the City Council at the August 10, 2015 meeting. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G • Ra a:09 qc INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5B Mtg. Date: 08-10-15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 7 APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Mr. Tonsich Historic Grading Report, Bolton Engineering Rendering of the proposed rear elevation; wall and slope RECOMMENDATION: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 1. It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report and applicant's proposal to determine if it meets the Council's intent and direction and direct staff to prepare a Resolution for the "deferred items" that were not approved with Resolution No. 1172. Resolution 1172 approved on March 23, 2015 granted various modifications to a previously approved project at 40 Eastfield Drive. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND APPLICANTS PROPOSAL 2. At the March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council by a vote 4-1, with Councilmember Hill objecting, adopted a Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of the requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, as follows: ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Re -grading of the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). The City Council directed the applicants to study alternative methods of grading in the rear area of the lot to achieve to the maximum extent practicable a 2:1 slope gradient without having to construct retaining walls and to the maximum extend practicable match the slope of the two properties on each side of 40 Eastfield; and to restudy the entrance to the electrical room, so that to eliminate the stairs from the upper pad. 3. Currently, the applicant requests approval of the staircase to the electrical room, which is 4' wide in the same configuration as in the previous proposal. Previously the applicant stated that Edison s personnel require an outside access to the equipment area and that there is no other reasonable way to access the electrical room from the outside. As for the grading of the rear slope, the applicant proposes a 2' high keystone wall along the rear of the residence and parking pad to be located approximately 7-15 feet down slope from the basement walls and light wells, with varied slopes between the wall and the structure. The slopes in that area would vary from a 2:1 in the middle (below the basement) to 1.7: 1 below the parking pad and 1.5:1 for the remaining of the slope. This would assure that the walls of the basement would not be higher than 5', as previously approved. With the previous proposal, which was rejected by the City Council, the applicant proposed a 3' to 5' high retaining wall along the rear, down slope, of the basement with 2:1 slope in most areas between the wall and the basement. Below the 2' high keystone wall, the slopes would remain at 1.5:1 grade; which the applicant and his engineer show in the historical data report as previously existing. The existing walking path from the upper building pad to the lower pad where the septic tank is located, was previously cut and will be reduced in width from approximately 13' to between 3-6 feet. That slope will be rebuilt to no steeper than 2:1. The slope below the path at the north end of the property will remain at 1.5:1, which daylights into the flat area where the future stable and corral are to be located and where a portable court is located. Enclosed with this report, provided by the applicant, are renderings of the proposed solution of the rear slope and the 2' keystone wall. 4. The applicant has disputed the requirement to bring back the 2:1 slope at the rear of the residence, stating that the original slope was never 2:1 along the entire width of the rear yard and his engineer has submitted historical data and topography ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive t n • • maps claiming justification for the proposed method of restoration of the slope. In addition the applicant has submitted a letter explaining his position and the need to retain the stairway to the electrical room. Both are attached. 5. In the historic grading report, the applicant's engineer states that as far back as 1927, the area of 38, 40 and 42 Eastfield was a 30' deep canyon, which was filled to create the roads and then the lots. The historical pictures show how the grading was done for the 3 lots, and the engineer states that there is evidence that all 3 lots had greater than 1 1/2:1 slopes with flatter area on the bottom, as is evidenced by the drainage culvert downhill from 40 (between 38 & 40 Eastfield) that runs under Outrider Road. The applicant and his engineer will address this report at the meeting. 6. In his letter, Mr. Tonsich states that the slopes in the rear were always shown as existing and until 2011, neither the City nor the County Building Dept. required a grading plan or permit to restore the rear of the lot, as it was deemed that it was not being changed. He further states, that when the dirt from the construction was stock piled on the slope it became "perceived slope disturbance" that is now required to be rebuilt to 2:1 slope, which it never was. He states that the historical data confirms that. As for the stairs, he states that the Planning Commission approved it. He also states that the lower flat area existed, that there is no other place to located the septic tank, and that there would be great financial impact if the slopes were to be graded out to Outrider and loss of the area for a future stable and corral. 7. The applicants submitted the latest proposal to the County Grading and Drainage Engineer, who stated that from an engineering and drainage standpoint and pending approval of the method of construction of the geogrid wall and greater than 2:1 slopes by the County Geotechnical engineer, the project is feasible for construction. As to the staircase, as proposed, she stated that with the City approval the County could permit it. The County staff would not commit whether the adjacent slopes (at 38 and 42 Eastfield) are greater than 2:1, stating that they have not done any analysis on the slopes. The County engineer did not see or review the report submitted by the applicant's engineer to the City Council. The County engineer confirmed that in order to rebuilt the rear slope to 2:1 the slope would have to be graded out very close to the roadway. That would create a design challenge for the location of the septic tank. BACKGROUND 8. Following Planning Commission approval, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and held several public hearings. Staff from Los Angeles County Public Works Department was present at two of the meetings and provided input. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive oi • • 9. In March the City Council granted a partial approval of the project which included a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for a new residence, garage and basement, grading and reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing driveway. Specifically, the approved modifications entail additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of a portion of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the footprint of the first story, re- grading and construction of a 3'-5' wall on the side of the residence in the side yard setback, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, relocation of the trash area, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot and additional short walls along the depressed driveway. With these modifications the applicant was allowed to proceed with construction of the approved items, including grading in the front area of the house due to the relocated trash area and lowered garage. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 10. The net lot area of the parcel, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations for the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 11. With the proposed method of grading of the lower area of the lot and the side of the house, the grading and disturbance of the lot will be as follows: Disturbed Area of the lot will be 28,073 square feet or 70.8% and the total grading quantity will be 6,019 cubic yards (cut and fill); with 3,262 cubic yards to be exported. Note: The RHMC includes "remedial grading or temporary disturbance" in the definition of disturbed area of a lot. However, if an area disturbed through temporary grading is brought back to the original condition, then that area is not counted as disturbed. Since the applicant proposes to return portion of the rear to the pre - construction state, the disturbed area will be reduced to 28,313 square feet of the lot from 31,870 square feet, reducing the disturbance to 71.4%. The remaining development standards will stay the same: Residential Building Pad Coverage: 12,386 square feet pad- coverage of 55.6% Future stable pad: 919 square feet — coverage of 49% for 450 sq.ft. stable (only potion of the pad within setback is counted) Structural Lot Coverage : 7,922 square feet or 19.97% (max 20% permitted) Total Lot Coverage (structures and flatwork): 11,485 square feet or 29%, (excluding pavers on driveway and parking pad); (max 35% permitted) ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive i • CONCLUSION 12. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction, previous approvals and the stockpiling of dirt on the original slope contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for re -grading the slope behind the house. 13. It is recommended that the City Council consider the following options: a) approve the proposal as is b) deny the project; meaning denying the stairs and requiring the applicant to come back with a revised method of grading (as the owner has to finish the grading in some manner to be able to obtain a final inspection of the house and receive certificate of occupancy) c) partially approve the request and direct staff to bring a Resolution based on the selected option. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MEMORANDUM Date: August 3, 2015 To: Rolling Hills City Council From: Nicholas Tonsich, Property Owner/Applicant RE: 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA s.,".. " r ki AUG 0 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 1. Project-Rararneters: Within structural coverage (less than 20%) and structural/flat coverage (less than 35%: 28.28%). House and garage at grade is 5,793 sf on 1.4 acre lot. Two properties down (36 Eastfield Drive) the residence over 6,500 sf on 1.1 acre lot. Soil Disturbance: Goal to protect natural contours and topography of the City. Project lot is a cut and fill slope manufactured by the City for construction of Eastfield Drive and filling of a canyon. DISTURBANCE STUDY AREA PREVIOUS PROPOSED HOUSE PAD 13,990 17,395 COOTES DRIVEWAY 2,560 2,560 STABLE PAD 5,088 5,088 SLOPE REPAIR 0 3,030 TOTAL AREA I 21,638 28,073 PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS HOUSE 22.92% 2. Lower lot: Installed permitted service road for reduced construction disturbance on Eastfield. Service road is the basis for much of the perceived soil disturbance. Reality is the dirt from approved basement excavation was placed on top of existing slope to create service road. 3. The slope currently requesting approval was approved with the December 27, 2011, Grading Plan. When the larger basement was approved (March, 2013) the County told the project engineer that a new grading plan was not necessary. Grading barely encroaches outside of the `line of grading" on approved grading plan (5-8 ft). • • 4. This original application to the Planning Commission included approval of the electrical room under the loggia, as well as two staircases (driveway to electrical room and center Tight well to lower lot). After several field trips and revisions, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0) voted that a resolution be drafted for approval that included the electrical room, staircase to the electrical room, and a staircase from mid -slope to the lower lot. At the next Planning Commission meeting the absent Commissioner was able to persuade the Commission to request a new resolution eliminating the mid -slope stair case to the lower lot. 5. County evidently has no objection to stairs or slope (See below email). HI Ross, Please contact Yolanta conceming these issues. Usa Naslund, PE LA. County Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division East Los Angeles 7:30-11:30am on Tuesdays (323) 820-6500 Lomita Office 8-11:30 on Thursdays (310) 534-3760 LET US KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING! http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bsdsurvey —Original Message — From: Ross Bolton[mailto:rbolton@boltonengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 201510:21 AM To: Usa Naslund Cc: Nicholas Tonsich; Doug Morris Subject: 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills Usa, We request the following information regarding the recent, proposed work on the rear, north slope at 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills: Does Los Angeles County Engineer agree that the rear, north slope at 38 Eastfield and 42 Eastfield are greater than 2:1? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the staircase from the motor court to the electrical room at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to leaving in place the lower, untouched, north slope at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the "wedge" of dirt from the basement level to 5 feet down from the loggia level being replaced at a variable slope of from 1.5:1 to 2:1 under approved conditions? We appreciate your review of this project and your assistance. Ross N. Bolton Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, Ca 90717 310 325-5580 2 ie� • • 6. Slopes of adjacent properties are as steep or steeper than the slope I am asking to restore and/or keep in its former condition. Bolton verified the slopes. Historical photos show lower riding ring. 7. There is no other viable location to put leach field or septic tank. Impact of Requiring Rebuilding Lower Slope 1. Eliminates riding ring that was purchased with original house. Rebuilding the entire slope effectively eliminates 10,000 sf of usable land and riding ring/horse set up (already approved by City). Rebuilding the entire slope would effectively make the septic system unusable (already approved by City and County). Large reduction in property value. 2. What is the net gain to the City? Slope consistent with adjacent slopes. Existing 1950s slope not natural; result of cut and fill to create Eastfield Drive. Slope not visible from any public area or street. Doubtful any lay person can determine the difference between 1.5:1 versus 2:1 with the naked eye. 3 is • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK El ton Engineering Corporation July 20, 2015 Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, 90274 Subject: Rear Yard Grading Study -1(t-: :1--' ,,,,,, •:-7,--, 1 ',I -,..7 E., AUG 0 3 2015 City of Rolling hills By We have studied the historic grading that has occurred for #38 Mr. Baer's property, #40 Mr. Tonsich's property, and #42 Mr. Cootes' property on Eastfield Drive and have determined the following: Before Eastfield Road or Outrider were graded and constructed, a 30± feet deep canyon was located in the vicinity of # 40 Eastfield. This canyon had to be filled to grade for Eastfield Road and Outrider Road. Photo A is a copy of the historic USGS topography from 1927 that shows this canyon. We have added approximately where Eastfield Drive, Outrider Road and the three lots have been constructed. A second confirmation regarding this is Photo B showing the lower portion of this canyon below Outrider that was not filled. It also shows the fill that was constructed for Outrider Road. This photo is from the historic Google Earth photos and is from 2007 which is preconstruction for #40 Eastfield Road. There is a depressed area with a culvert under Outrider Road that is also a remnant of this canyon and indicates this canyon was located on the westerly side of # 40 Eastfield Road. Another confirmation of this canyon is the contractor has dug exploratory excavations on #40 Eastfield Road, to determine the necessary depth for foundations that has determined that bedrock in the vicinity of the garage is down 30 feet. This indicates that the original canyon is located in the vicinity of the northwest boundary of #40 Eastfield Road. We are confident that this canyon was filled to allow construction of Outrider Road and Eastfield Drive. The three houses for #38, 40, and 42 Eastfield were graded. In all three cases, these sites were graded as cut/fill pads. Photos C, D and E show respectively #38, #40 and # 42 Eastfield Roads. These pictures were taken on May 8, 2015 and show the current slope conditions. Cut/fill pads are pads that are cut on the uphill side of the pad and this material would typically be used to fill the downhill side of the pad. The downhill fill slopes were graded at 1 '/z :1. These fill slopes daylighted onto an approximate 3:1 or 4:1 lower slope. In the case of #38 and #42 Eastfield, no additional grading was performed. So currently, there are approximately 1 1/:1 slopes below the houses that daylight onto 3:1 to 4:1 lower slopes. 25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomitp„C_A 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 05) • • Bolton Engineering Corporation In the case of # 40 Easffield, there was a flatter area that provided the area to have a riding ring on this lower area in the vicinity of the . This can be seen in Photo G an historic aerial from U.S.G.S. of 1963 as shown on Photo B. We have confirmed the steepness of these slopes using a hand level. The existing slope at #38 Eastfield was measured at about 1.4 : 1. The slope at # 42 is more difficult to measure due to the 2 to 4 feet of built up ivy on the slope. The measurement for this slope was about 1.6:1. Photo F is a 2015 photo from Google Earth showing a comparison of the steepness of the slopes for #38, #40 and #42 Easffield Dr. Since the home at # 40 Eastfield is under construction and there is a stockpile fill on the rear slope, a direct comparison of the steepness of the slope cannot be made from this photo, the rear slopes of bothe #38 and #42 Eastfield are quite steep slopes. Since: 1. The steepness of the rear slopes for the two adjacent houses at #38 and #42 Eastfield have approximately 1 % : 1, 2. The original, preconstruction steepness of the rear slope at # 40 was 1 %2 : 1. 3. There has been a lower pad at # 40 for more than 50 years. Then: We believe it is reasonable to request the rear slope #40 Eastfield be allowed to be designed at a gradient of 1 1/ : 1 which is the "original, preconstruction" slope steepness and to continue to have a lower pad for the property. Currently, Mr. Tonsich is in the process of building his new home and needs to finish this downhill slope. We are proposing a small, 2 feet high keystone wall and a variable sloped fill from the top of the wall to the house wall. This slope will be at a slope between 2:1 and 1 1/2:1 to 5 feet down from the house main floor. This will leave 5 feet of the house showing below the main floor which was previously approved. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, Vice President RCE 26120 25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita, . 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 Photo A U.S.G.S. Historic Topo Dated 1927 14.1 P hoto B Google Earth Photo Dated 2007 Preconstruction •: Photo C 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking southwest showing 1 34:1 or steeper rear slope at #38 Eastfield Photo D 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking south showing 114:1 or steeper rear slope at #38 Eastfield Photo E 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking west showing 13r4:1 steep rear slope at #42 Eastfield Go gic earth feet' meters: �o� Photo F 2015 photo by Google Earth Looking southeast showing the steeper rear slopes at #38, #40 and #42 Eastfield Photo G 1963 photo by U.S.G.S Showing a riding ring on the lower pad at at #38 Eastfield Gc earth feet; meters " Am 1200 '80 Photo H 20091photo by Google Earth Showing improvements on the lower pad prior to construction at #40 Eastfield COAST GEOHNICAL, INC. 4111 1200 West Commonwealth. Fullerton. CA 92833 • Ph: (7141870-1211 • Fax: (714) 870-1222- cmail:coasteeotec sbcetobat.net March 3, 2015 Mr. Nick Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 W.O. 318606-12 MAR• 0 ' 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Subject: Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California Dear Mr. Tonsich: Pursuant to your request this addendum report has been prepared to address certain items within a February 11, 2015 letter from the City, for Zoning Case No. 862, and to address current proposed restoration/reconstruction of the rear descending slope. The project civil engineer has requested that we provide input on the following items from the February 9, 2015 City letter. Provide information reeardin2 the reasons for locatinr the septic tank in the proposed location. • Location of a septic system is dependent on the physical layout of the property and the subsurface conditions. Initially a location is chosen based on required setbacks as stated in Table K-1 of the UPC, the preference of having a gravity fed system, access to construct the system, and future access to service the system. As the project evolved over the years several stages of exploration and testing have been performed assessing different areas of the property for a septic system. The current location in the southern portion of the lower pad was selected as it complied with all setbacks, provided construction and future service access, met County guidelines for a _disposal system, and provided the location that was professionally opinioned to have the most favorable subsurface conditions. While the location of the septic tank can be moved, the actual seepage pits must be placed at the test locations shown on Figure 2 of our September 19, 2011 report. Substantiate the claim that there is water close to the surface in the area of the proposed stable set aside • Exploration by previous site consultants in this area found groundwater at 30 feet below ground surface. The project civil engineer has requested clarification on the current proposed grading scenario addressing the slope that descends below the rear of the residence and to provide comment on bedrock depth within the basement area. Restoration of rear descendinii slope Our understanding is that the current proposed plan is as follows: • Restore the lower pad area and lower slope area to original undisturbed grades and to reconstruct the upper slope area. Restoration of the lower slope area and lower pad will require removal of Q0i COAST GEOTII-I. NICAL, INC. • Mr. Tonsich 2 W. O.318606-12 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report March 1 2015, stockpiled soils. Adequate removal can be verified by the civil though surveying and the soils engineer through visual observations. After removals the exposed surfaces would require minimal remedial grading for drainage and to improve slope surface conditions. The scope of' remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading, but is anticipated to consist mostly of just track rolling finish grades. • A variable height MSE wall is then proposed in the upper slope area. Prior to wall construction some remedial grading of the existing level area that extends out from the basement level will be required. The scope of remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading. • After completion of remedial grading the MSE wall may be constructed and the area between the back of the MSE wall and basement wall backfilled and a 2:1(H:V) slope constructed. • Typical construction is depicted on our appended Revised Geologic Section AA'. Actual construction will be dependent on a plan prepared by the project civil engineer. • This scenario is considered geotechnically acceptable, as are others. The fmal method chosen for restoration of the corral and rear slope area, and reconstruction of the upper slope area, will be dependent on issues outside the purview of the geotechnical consultant. • Final plans are subject to the review and approval of the soils engineer. Additional recommendations could be provided at that time. Bedrock death within the basement area Excavations for basement foundations were deepened as needed to comply with project geotechnical recommendations for bedrock embedment. The depth to bedrock varied across the site but generally deepened southeast to northwest and southwest to northeast. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 Todd D. CEG 19 cc xp 04/16 TODD D. HOUSEAL• No.1914 e CERTIFIED ENGINEERING 4' GEOLOGIST Q� COAST GEOTIIHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich 3 W. O. 318606-12 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Renort March 3.2015 REFERENCES 1. Geologic Investigation of Proposed New Residence, #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-02, dated October 26, 2010. 2. Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-03, dated March 29, 2011. 3. Revised Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-04, dated July 13, 2011. 4. Report of Percolation Feasibility Study for Proposed Residence at #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-05, dated September 19, 2011. 5. As Built Rough Grade Geologic Report for #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-06, dated December 17,2012. 6. Response to County Geologic Review Sheet for Proposed Garage Shoring and Caissons for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, Califomia; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-07 dated December 22, 2013. 7. Acceptance of Geotechnical Responsibility and Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-08, dated July 11, 20I4. 8. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 9. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 10. Geotechnical Recommendations for Proposed Paving Stone Section for Proposed Driveway, 40 Eastfiled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O.318606.10, dated February 10, 2015. 11. Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastfiled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-11, dated March, 2015. (A) REVISED GEOLOGIC SECTION A -A 1120 — Eastruld 1100 1080' 1060 1040 — 1020 • • 1004 — Tm• Tm . • • • Scale I" — 30ft. (DIV) • !Existing constsuctios , 2:1(R:V) dope Proposed MSE wall Skives grade to be reestablished . , • 71.1".!*•1•• ' • d Estimated stockpile P/L 1 Outrider ICOAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I W.O. 318606 Figure 2 f; w . • • :/ P _ repletion Rates: t: TB 1— 8375 gallons/day or 32 gadom/sq.ft /day TB2— 2150 gallons/day or 283 gadons/sq.ftlday TB3 - 8562 gallons/day or 114.7 galloas/sq.ftfday TB4— 6250 gallons/day or 80.7 gadoas/sq.ftJday w. and Ws Me Tarddr Pawling Ran jyy Ca K'r• name AC.•.e..r A Mow • SITE MAP • i38 FASYFIaD ORrvE R.S. BK 58 PGs 610 90 ,.,,•,.-.....mar• i"moms 4PCAT2E tot e2 I Scale 1" — 32ft rw113 • primary g4. ystem lat 1Seepsgepits 2,3ana4Ate 5ftdtametrrbylitedeep!ritha 5ftnp F■ Seepage pit 1 is 5ft diameter by 41 ft deep vr}th a 5 ft caP ' II i I • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, JNC. 14. Q`o OEAST lELP DR uiy �f is CA 7 ?7 new u ntilooa- f x 8TO 1 MUM u etn1aur Al• MUSE>0 6 f3EDR (jam 11F.7>ENL ES.TIENCJIA1Vt aN.NQitllaretu�iaT PLAN The approval shall be contingent upon the following: 1.) Grading plan shall be approved by Building and Safety Department 2.) The proposed system shall conform to the rough grading approval by the County Geology Division of the Building and Safety as required for brilside properties. 3.) MI pertinent horizontal setback distances are to be maintained. 4.) The existing septic system shad be abandoned as per plumbing code. 5.) Any deviation of this sewage disposal plot plan and/or the floor plan cote reverse without prior Health Department approval shall nullify and void this approval. 6.) Call the Health Department prior to bacldding of septic tank. P • Date I0/3//�0// Method of Sewage _ Disposal Approved • ItiU1 C.73 ezZttobt. Health Officer APPROVAL VALIIY FOR ONE YEAR ENHANCED SYSTEM • Requires installation inspection by Environmental Health prior to final approval. W. O. 318608 Figure 2 • • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK OAST GECOT[: HN AL, iNC. .\r tc.`.iu .itit: I -I:. i it Mirada, (.'\ ,A1(:1 Ph. t )41 A' I -t1169 i>r I v.: t?141 i.i.n1?v September 19, 2011 W.O. 318606-05 Mr. and Mrs. Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Report of Percolation Feasibility Study for Proposed Residence at #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California Mr. and Mrs. Tonsich: Submitted herewith is the percolation feasibility study performed for #40 Eastfield found in the Rolling Hills area of the County of Los Angeles. This report completes our work scope for the project outlined in our proposal dated August 16, 2011. PURPOSE The purpose of the percolation study is to determine if the subject site has sufficient area with suitable percolation, physiographic and geologic characteristics for construction of seepage pit onsite absorption system, in general accordance with County of Los Angeles guidelines. The proposed system is to service a new residence. PAST TESTING The site was previously tested for percolation in 2006 and the projected halted prior to a report being finalized. Since that time the project concept has changed, County testing guidelines have changed, and the proposed residence has encroached into needed setbacks for seepage pits. The test borings placed are shown on the appended site plan as B1 through B4. Boring logs and percolation testing are attached in Appendix A. This data is attached as a County requirement and has not been utilized in preparation of this report. WORK SCOPE The project work scope consisted of the following: 1. Location of four borings drilled two feet in diameter to depths in compliance with guidelines. 2. Geologic logging of borings. 3. Presaturation and percolation testing of borings. 4. Analysis of data. 5. Preparation of this report. OAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC ronsich 2 W.O.318606-05 Report of Percolation .Feasibility September 19. 2011 To facilitate compliance with the County of Los Angeles Guidelines, each County requirement is stated below followed by our statement. Item 1 Item 1 requests the location of the property including the legal description. • The site is identified as #40 Eastfiled Drive in the City of Rolling Hills, California, with APN 7567-003-050, and legal description ROS Book 58, pages 6-10, Lot 91. • The site is shown on a Vicinity Map appended as Figure 1. Item 2 Item 2 request the owner's name, address, and phone number. • The owners' name is Mr. and Mrs. Nick Tonsich, with the mailing address as shown on the cover page of this report. • The owner can be reached through their general contractor, Mr. Doug Morris, at 310-721- 4831. Item 3 Item 3 requests the type of proposed sewage system. • The existing residence is to be demolished and a new residence constructed. The new residence will be one story over basement. The new residence will dispose of effluent into a private sewage disposal system. 'The new system will consist of a septic tank with a five- foot diameter seepage pit(s). An advanced treatment system is anticipated to be required. The system will service a residence with five true bedrooms and one bedroom equivalent (basement sauna/spa) for a bedroom count of six. This interpretation of bedroom count was agreed on with the County Environmental I-lealth representative, prior to testing. • The proposed septic tank and pit(s) will be located in a landscape area in a level yard area down slope of the proposed residence. Item 4 )tern 4 requests description of the on -site materials. Earth materials at the location of the seepage pits are composed of colluvium underlain by bedrock. i✓ffluent will be disposed of into bedrock which is generally composed of tan white t0 grey interbedded diatomaceous siltstones, clayey s;ltstones, silly claySt0ilcS, alit sandstones with beds of fractured S.iioeaus silt tl l s ' 1 ,' s c. ni:.. � .c:o;«ile rotes i:r�� :ill ici;. �,tc;l lc� vary within the Strata i70111 \'try 1ow "ales in the diatomaceous claydstoncs to vcry ;lgh rates in the fractured siliceous siltstenes. Appendc(i Tit'ii es 2 and 3 how site conditions and i'i cross SCCtiOi1. respccti\:'1v. Uc(lo is lobs ci`'111C i.'"liif l(1;'- ;?Ctl '�'S . r: cS'nrted 11 Mlles i\ 11)1'0 i r). }Air!' J, UTECt1 1N1 AL, I N C Tonsich W.O. 31 S606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September 19, 2011 iltean 5 Item 5 requests a scaled grading plan. a. Figure 2 is a site plan that shows the property and proposed grading at a 1"= 32ft. scale. b. Figure 2 includes topography for the site. c. No hydrophytic plants or oak trees were observed in the vicinity of the proposed disposal pit(s). d. No wells, abandoned wells, or springs are present on the site. Drinking water will be from metered City service. e. No streams are located on the site. f. The percolation test boring locations are indicated on Figure 2. g. Bedrock outcrops were not observed in the vicinity of the test borings. h. The proposed residence and appurtenances are shown on Figure 2. i. The dimensions of the proposed septic tank and seepage. pits are shown on Figure 2. Section A -A' is a geologic cross-section that indicates cap -off depth and any setback distances. j. The proposed septic tank will be located in a landscape area. By the County guidelines septic tank capacity is based on bedroom count only, k. Our interpretation of the project's bedroom count is six (five true bedrooms and one bedroom equivalent). The septic tank size required by code based on this bedroom count is 1500 gallons. Due to a high percolation rate an advanced treatment system will be required. The County requires that the advanced treatment system be capable of treating effluent based on bedroom count and to have adequate capacity. A bedroom count of six requires the system to be able to treat 1050 gallons of effluent per day. A MicroSeptec ES12 will service up to seven bedrooms, is able to treat 1200 gallons of effluent per day, and has a tank capacity of 3436 gallons, and is opinioned to comply with County requirements. A cross-section view of the ES12 septic tank and risers is attached as Figure 5. The client is advised that the recommended advanced septic tank is not the only -type allowed by the County. Alternate advanced septic tanks are available and can be utilized provided they comply with all project and County requirements. To use an alternate tank portions of this report would need to be rewritten and a new site map prepared showing the selected advanced septic tank. 1. While testing indicates that one pit would be sufficient for both the primary and expansion system; our recommendation is that both the primary and expansion system utilize two seepage pits each. This conservative recommendation is based on performance of other systems in ;itL area. A distribution box is needed for this project. Tiic area of 100% ex ansion is shown Gil Figure 2. n. The ?raj -eel contractor shall provide documentation of wILE'linn'd c: :Inv filler r'2I1c1 ia1 (i t'sedl by the supplier. • COAST GEOTECHNlICAL, INC Tonsich 4 W.O. 318606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September 1 9.2011 o. Pertinent setback distances are indicated on Figure 2. Item 6 Item 6 requests a copy of the approved grading plan. • Figure 2 is a copy of the site plan provided by the project civil engineer. Significant grade changes are not planned in the area of the proposed system. Item 7 Item 7 requests a historic high groundwater level determination. ▪ Groundwater levels are known to vary in the area; as such, each boring was advanced to where water was encountered. The boring was then allowed to stand open at least 24hours and the water levels checked. In boring 1, water was encountered at 51 feet and stayed at 51 feet. In borings 2, 3 and 4 water was encountered at 31 feet and stabilized at 28 feet. Each boring was backfilled with eight feet of tamped soil and capped with two feet of concrete. The concrete was allowed to cure 24 hours prior to the presoak. • The difference in water depths is attributed to the waters being contained in perched groundwater zones separated by an aquiclude. Item 8 Item 8 requests a floor plan of the building. • The floor plan showing room use that will contribute to the proposed _disposal system is attached as Figure 4. 1 tern 9 item 9 requests a final county geologic review sheet required by Building and Safety. • The status of approval by Building and Safety is unknown. Our reports found the proposed project feasible from a geologic perspective. • The client or his agent will need to provide the approval sheet from the Building and Safety to County Environmental Health. Item 10 Item 10 requests percolation test data a. Todd Houseal, a Certified Engineering Geologist, performed the percolation testing. b. Percolation testing was performed at the plotted locations shown on Figure 2. The percolation test borings consisted of 24" diameter boreholes. The boreholes were located at the approximate locations of the proposed seepage pits and the 100% expansion pits. The amount of water used 10 fill -the boreholes was determined from a cr;librated w 1cr meter. Calihrriion Uc r the water meter is appended as Figure :i, The water used daring the percoia icn testing was obtained !kiln a fire hydrant located near 47 Cutrider. c. fli ;c;uircd presoak for TB 1 :;trough TB4 was performed on September <i. 201 I. \V ale; \VCiS iICltie 10 the borin25 Uti izilu a calibrated water meter. Waters were tttidedt to the r7 i ST G 1 Li T .EC 1-114' 1 y .� I .NT C Tonsich Report of Percolation Feasibility 5 W.O. 318606-05 September 19. 2011 proposed cap depth of five feet. The borings were dry 24 hours after the presoak. Presoak data is presented below. Boring No. Start meter End meter Presoak volume reading reading (gals) 1 1023550 1024500 I 950 2 1024500 1024875 I 375 3 1024875 1025475 I 600 4 1025475 1025875 I 400 Time Water depth after 24hrs 8am-8:13 dry 8:14- 8:19 dry 8:22-8:31 dry 8:31-8:36 diy d. Percolation testing was performed on September 7, 2011. The County deems that percolation testing finds a minimum percolation rate of 0,83 gallons per square foot per day to be present for seepage pits, that the seepage pit(s) can dispose of five times the volume of the required septic tank size over a 24 hour period, and that where the percolation rate exceeds 5.12 gallons per square foot per day an advanced treatment system that reduces the effluent nitrogen level be utilized. Determination of a percolation rate was performed as follows. The County requires that the percolation rate of each seepage pit be determined by filling the test boring to the cap depth, and then at equal timed intervals over a period of eight hours add waters into the test borings filling the water level back to the cap depth each time. The amount of water percolated into the test boring over this time period is then utilized to determine the percolation rate of the test hole. Data obtained from the testing is presented on Plates 1 through 4. Determination of percolation rates are presented on Plates 1 A, 2A, 3A and 4A. Test results from our percolation rate testing indicate a percolation rate of 32 gallons per square foot per day for TBI, 28.3 gallons per square foot per day for TB2, 114.7 gallons per square foot per day for TB3, and 80.7 gallons per square foot per day for TB4. Our field data and analysis shows an acceptable percolation rate for seepage pits, and that an advanced treatment system will be required. e. Testing of both the primary and expansion pit(s) must demonstrate that they can dispose of live times the capacity of the proposed septic tank (1500ga1s x 5=7500ga1s)). Calculations Presented on Plates I l :roa:h jIA indicate that TBI and TB3 show adequate disposal as single pits and the t TB2 i;110 T B4 woii d require multiple pits. Based on the performance of other systems in the area. our opinion. is that it is prudent t0 have both the primary and secondary system titili>e t\vo pits. Our recommendation is to utilize TBI and TB2 as the primary pits and TB3 and 1 14 as the expansion pits. Test results show that combined TB1 and T'2 disposed o; ? 106) Lallc:"s of wt'trr and coat!-;.i ed T133. and T1`F; ! disposed ol. • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC Tonsich 6 W .O. 318606-05 Report of Percolation Feasibility September 19, 2011 14182 gallons of water. Both the primary and expansion pits demonstrate they can dispose of the required volume of water (7500ga1s). Our recommended cap -off depth for any seepage pit in the area of the test borings is a minimum of five feet below ground surface. We recommend that TB1 be 41 feet total depth, drilled five-foot diameter with a five- foot cap and TB2, TB3 and TB4 be 18 feet total depth, drilled five-foot diameter with a five-foot cap. This recommendation is based on the proposed location of the seepage pits shown on Figure 2. f. Test data and calculations are appended on Plates 1 through 4 and Plates IA through 4A. • Item 11 Item 11 requests a conclusion on the suitability of the site for the proposed system. Information obtained from the percolation testing indicates that a proposed on -site sewage disposal system is feasible for the subject site. Item 12 Item 12 requests a signed statement that this report presents an accurate and complete disclosure of all facts known relating to the proposed on -site sewage disposal system. • It is our opinion that this report presents an accurate and complete disclosure of all facts that are known and relate to the proposed on -site sewage disposal system. • The client is advised that an onsite sewage disposal system is considered temporary only with eventual failure and requirement for replacement with a new system. • Life expectancy of a system varies widely dependent on usage, construction and maintenance. Coast Geotechnical, Inc. makes no warranty or guarantee of the system or length of effectiveness. • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. shall be consulted if the system loads change from those anticipated; if the pit locations change significantly; if an alternate advanced treatinent system is utilized and during pit construction so the holes may be down hole logged. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. f odd D. :cuuseal (T G 1914 Exp 4112 TODD D.HOUSEAL No.1914 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING �Q GEOLOGIST <2••�, OF C At.VFO • Ra ag, qe INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5B Mtg. Date: 08-10-15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR S THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER /2'2C- APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Mr. Tonsich Historic Grading Report, Bolton Engineering Rendering of the proposed rear elevation; wall and slope RECOMMENDATION: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 1. It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report and applicant's proposal to determine if it meets the Council's intent and direction and direct staff to prepare a Resolution for the "deferred items" that were not approved with Resolution No. 1172. Resolution 1172 approved on March 23, 2015 granted various modifications to a previously approved project at 40 Eastfield Drive. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND APPLICANTS PROPOSAL 2. At the March 23, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council by a vote 4-1, with Councilmember Hill objecting, adopted a Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of the requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, as follows: ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. v • • 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and 2. Re -grading of the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). The City Council directed the applicants to study alternative methods of grading in the rear area of the lot to achieve to the maximum extent practicable a 2:1 slope gradient without having to construct retaining walls and to the maximum extend practicable match the slope of the two properties on each side of 40 Eastfield; and to restudy the entrance to the electrical room, so that to eliminate the stairs from the upper pad. 3. Currently, the applicant requests approval of the staircase to the electrical room, which is 4' wide in the same configuration as in the previous proposal. Previously the applicant stated that Edison s personnel require an outside access to the equipment area and that there is no other reasonable way to access the electrical room from the outside. As for the grading of the rear slope, the applicant proposes a 2' high keystone wall along the rear of the residence and parking pad to be located approximately 7-15 feet down slope from the basement walls and light wells, with varied slopes between the wall and the structure. The slopes in that area would vary from a 2:1 in the middle (below the basement) to 1.7: 1 below the parking pad and 1.5:1 for the remaining of the slope. This would assure that the walls of the basement would not be higher than 5', as previously approved. With the previous proposal, which was rejected by the City Council, the applicant proposed a 3' to 5' high retaining wall along the rear, down slope, of the basement with 2:1 slope in most areas between the wall and the basement. Below the 2' high keystone wall, the slopes would remain at 1.5:1 grade; which the applicant and his engineer show in the historical data report as previously existing. The existing walking path from the upper building pad to the lower pad where the septic tank is located, was previously cut and will be reduced in width from approximately 13' to between 3-6 feet. That slope will be rebuilt to no steeper than 2:1. The slope below the path at the north end of the property will remain at 1.5:1, which daylights into the flat area where the future stable and corral are to be located and where a portable court is located. Enclosed with this report, provided by the applicant, are renderings of the proposed solution of the rear slope and the 2' keystone wall. 4. The applicant has disputed the requirement to bring back the 2:1 slope at the rear of the residence, stating that the original slope was never 2:1 along the entire width of the rear yard and his engineer has submitted historical data and topography ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • maps claiming justification for the proposed method of restoration of the slope. In addition the applicant has submitted a letter explaining his position and the need to retain the stairway to the electrical room. Both are attached. 5. In the historic grading report, the applicant's engineer states that as far back as 1927, the area of 38, 40 and 42 Eastfield was a 30' deep canyon, which was filled to create the roads and then the lots. The historical pictures show how the grading was done for the 3 lots, and the engineer states that there is evidence that all 3 lots had greater than 1 1/2:1 slopes with flatter area on the bottom, as is evidenced by the drainage culvert downhill from 40 (between 38 & 40 Eastfield) that runs under Outrider Road. The applicant and his engineer will address this report at the meeting. 6. In his letter, Mr. Tonsich states that the slopes in the rear were always shown as existing and until 2011, neither the City nor the County Building Dept. required a grading plan or permit to restore the rear of the lot, as it was deemed that it was not being changed. He further states, that when the dirt from the construction was stock piled on the slope it became "perceived slope disturbance" that is now required to be rebuilt to 2:1 slope, which it never was. He states that the historical data confirms that. As for the stairs, he states that the Planning Commission approved it. He also states that the lower flat area existed, that there is no other place to located the septic tank, and that there would be great financial impact if the slopes were to be graded out to Outrider and loss of the area for a future stable and corral. 7. The applicants submitted the latest proposal to the County Grading and Drainage Engineer, who stated that from an engineering and drainage standpoint and pending approval of the method of construction of the geogrid wall and greater than 2:1 slopes by the County Geotechnical engineer, the project is feasible for construction. As to the staircase, as proposed, she stated that with the City approval the County could permit it. The County staff would not commit whether the adjacent slopes (at 38 and 42 Eastfield) are greater than 2:1, stating that they have not done any analysis on the slopes. The County engineer did not see or review the report submitted by the applicant's engineer to the City Council. The County engineer confirmed that in order to rebuilt the rear slope to 2:1 the slope would have to be graded out very close to the roadway. That would create a design challenge for the location of the septic tank. BACKGROUND 8. Following Planning Commission approval, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and held several public hearings. Staff from Los Angeles County Public Works Department was present at two of the meetings and provided input. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • 9. In March the City Council granted a partial approval of the project which included a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for a new residence, garage and basement, grading and reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing driveway. Specifically, the approved modifications entail additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of a portion of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the footprint of the first story, re- grading and construction of a 3'-5' wall on the side of the residence in the side yard setback, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, relocation of the trash area, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot and additional short walls along the depressed driveway. With these modifications the applicant was allowed to proceed with construction of the approved items, including grading in the front area of the house due to the relocated trash area and lowered garage. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 10. The net lot area of the parcel, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations for the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 11. With the proposed method of grading of the lower area of the lot and the side of the house, the grading and disturbance of the lot will be as follows: Disturbed Area of the lot will be 28,073 square feet or 70.8% and the total grading quantity will be 6,019 cubic yards (cut and fill); with 3,262 cubic yards to be exported. Note: The RHMC includes "remedial grading or temporary disturbance" in the definition of disturbed area of a lot. However, if an area disturbed through temporary grading is brought back to the original condition, then that area is not counted as disturbed. Since the applicant proposes to return portion of the rear to the pre - construction state, the disturbed area will be reduced to 28,313 square feet of the lot from 31,870 square feet, reducing the disturbance to 71.4%. The remaining development standards will stay the same: Residential Building Pad Coverage: 12,386 square feet pad- coverage of 55.6% Future stable pad: 919 square feet — coverage of 49% for 450 sq.ft. stable (only potion of the pad within setback is counted) Structural Lot Coverage : 7,922 square feet or 19.97% (max 20% permitted) Total Lot Coverage (structures and flatwork): 11,485 square feet or 29%, (excluding pavers on driveway and parking pad); (max 35% permitted) ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • i CONCLUSION 12. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction, previous approvals and the stockpiling of dirt on the original slope contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for re -grading the slope behind the house. 13. It is recommended that the City Council consider the following options: a) approve the proposal as is b) deny the project; meaning denying the stairs and requiring the applicant to come back with a revised method of grading (as the owner has to finish the grading in some manner to be able to obtain a final inspection of the house and receive certificate of occupancy) c) partially approve the request and direct staff to bring a Resolution based on the selected option. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MEMORANDUM Date: August 3, 2015 To: Rolling Hills City Council From: Nicholas Tonsich, Property Owner/Applicant RE: 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA AUG 0 LI 2015 City of Rolling Hills By ****************************************************************** TJ 1. P aject-Rarameters: Within structural coverage (less than 20%) and structural/flat coverage (less than 35%: 28.28%). House and garage at grade is 5,793 sf on 1.4 acre lot. Two properties down (36 Eastfield Drive) the residence over 6,500 sf on 1.1 acre lot. Soil Disturbance: Goal to protect natural contours and topography of the City. Project lot is a cut and fill slope manufactured by the City for construction of Eastfield Drive and filling of a canyon. DISTURBANCE STUDY AREA PREVIOUS PROPOSED HOUSE PAD 13,990 17,395 COOTES DRIVEWAY 2,560 2,560 STABLE PAD 5,088 5,088 SLOPE REPAIR 0 3,030 TOTAL AREA I 21,638 28,073 PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS HOUSE 22.92% 2. Lower lot: Installed permitted service road for reduced construction disturbance on Eastfield. Service road is the basis for much of the perceived soil disturbance. Reality is the dirt from approved basement excavation was placed on top of existing slope to create service road. 3. The slope currently requesting approval was approved with the December 27, 2011, Grading Plan. When the larger basement was approved (March, 2013) the County told the project engineer that a new grading plan was not necessary. Grading barely encroaches outside of the "line of grading" on approved grading plan (5-8 ft). 1 • • 4. This original application to the Planning Commission included approval of the electrical room under the loggia, as well as two staircases (driveway to electrical room and center Tight well to lower lot). After several field trips and revisions, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0) voted that a resolution be drafted for approval that included the electrical room, staircase to the electrical room, and a staircase from mid -slope to the lower lot. At the next Planning Commission meeting the absent Commissioner was able to persuade the Commission to request a new resolution eliminating the mid -slope stair case to the lower lot. 5. County evidently has no objection to stairs or slope (See below email). Hi Ross, Please contact Yolanta conceming these issues. Usa Naslund, PE LA. County Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division East Los Angeles 7:30-11:30am on Tuesdays (323) 820-6500 Lomita Office 8-11:30 on Thursdays (310) 534-3760 LET US KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING! http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bsdsurvey —Original Message — From: Ross Bolton[mailto:rbolton@boltonengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 10:21 AM To: Usa Naslund Cc: Nicholas Tonsich; Doug Morris Subject: 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills Usa, We request the following information regarding the recent, proposed work on the rear, north slope at 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills: Does Los Angeles County Engineer agree that the rear, north slope at 38 Eastfield and 42 Eastfield are greater than 2:1? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the staircase from the motor court to the electrical room at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to leaving in place the lower, untouched, north slope at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the "wedge" of dirt from the basement level to 5 feet down from the loggia level being replaced at a variable slope of from 1.5:1 to 2:1 under approved conditions? We appreciate your review of this project and your assistance. Ross N. Bolton Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, Ca 90717 310 325-5580 2 6. Slopes of adjacent properties are as steep or steeper than the slope I am asking to restore and/or keep in its former condition. Bolton verified the slopes. Historical photos show lower riding ring. 7. There is no other viable location to put leach field or septic tank. Impact of Requiring Rebuilding Lower Slope 1. Eliminates riding ring that was purchased with original house. Rebuilding the entire slope effectively eliminates 10,000 sf of usable land and riding ring/horse set up (already approved by City). Rebuilding the entire slope would effectively make the septic system unusable (already approved by City and County). Large reduction in property value. 2. What is the net gain to the City? Slope consistent with adjacent slopes. Existing 1950s slope not natural; result of cut and fill to create Eastfield Drive. Slope not visible from any public area or street. Doubtful any lay person can determine the difference between 1.5:1 versus 2:1 with the naked eye. 3 O • . THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK iiictton Ert •ineerin Cor oration July 20, 2015 Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, 90274 Subject: Rear Yard Grading Study pi �'+a[3:'911,,���, �sifS kwJ • ,: AUG 0 3 2015 City of Rolling rills By We have studied the historic grading that has occurred for #38 Mr. Baer's property, #40 Mr. Tonsich's property, and #42 Mr. Cootes' property on Eastfield Drive and have determined the following: Before Eastfield Road or Outrider were graded and constructed, a 30± feet deep canyon was located in the vicinity of # 40 Eastfield. This canyon had to be filled to grade for Eastfield Road and Outrider Road. Photo A is a copy of the historic USGS topography from 1927 that shows this canyon. We have added approximately where Eastfield Drive, Outrider Road and the three lots have been constructed. A second confirmation regarding this is Photo B showing the lower portion of this canyon below Outrider that was not filled. It also shows the fill that was constructed for Outrider Road. This photo is from the historic Google Earth photos and is from 2007 which is preconstruction for #40 Eastfield Road. There is a depressed area with a culvert under Outrider Road that is also a remnant of this canyon and indicates this canyon was located on the westerly side of # 40 Eastfield Road. Another confirmation of this canyon is the contractor has dug exploratory excavations on #40 Eastfield Road, to determine the necessary depth for foundations that has determined that bedrock in the vicinity of the garage is down 30 feet. This indicates that the original canyon is located in the vicinity of the northwest boundary of #40 Eastfield Road. We are confident that this canyon was filled to allow construction of Outrider Road and Eastfield Drive. The three houses for #38, 40, and 42 Eastfield were graded. In all three cases, these sites were graded as cut/fill pads. Photos C, D and E show respectively #38, #40 and # 42 Eastfield Roads. These pictures were taken on May 8, 2015 and show the current slope conditions. Cut/fill pads are pads that are cut on the uphill side of the pad and this material would typically be used to fill the downhill side of the pad. The downhill fill slopes were graded at 1 %2 :1. These fill slopes daylighted onto an approximate 3:1 or 4:1 lower slope. In the case of #38 and #42 Eastfield, no additional grading was performed. So currently, there are approximately 1 '/2:1 slopes below the houses that daylight onto 3:1 to 4:1 lower slopes. 25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomit CA 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 • Bolton Engineering Corporation In the case of # 40 Eastfield, there was a flatter area that provided the area to have a riding ring on this lower area in the vicinity of the . This can be seen in Photo G an historic aerial from U.S.G.S. of 1963 as shown on Photo B. We have confirmed the steepness of these slopes using a hand level. The existing slope at #38 Eastfield was measured at about 1.4 : 1. The slope at # 42 is more difficult to measure due to the 2 to 4 feet of built up ivy on the slope. The measurement for this slope was about 1.6 . 1. Photo F is a 2015 photo from Google Earth showing a comparison of the steepness of the slopes for #38, #40 and #42 Eastfield Dr. Since the home at # 40 Eastfield is under construction and there is a stockpile fill on the rear slope, a direct comparison of the steepness of the slope cannot be made from this photo, the rear slopes of bothe #38 and #42 Eastfield are quite steep slopes. Since: 1. The steepness of the rear slopes for the two adjacent houses at #38 and #42 Eastfield have approximately 1 '/2 : 1, 2. The original, preconstruction steepness of the rear slope at # 40 was 1 1/z : 1. 3. There has been a lower pad at # 40 for more than 50 years. Then: We believe it is reasonable to request the rear slope #40 Eastfield be allowed to be designed at a gradient of 1 '/z : 1 which is the "original, preconstruction" slope steepness and to continue to have a lower pad for the property. Currently, Mr. Tonsich is in the process of building his new home and needs to finish this downhill slope. We are proposing a small, 2 feet high keystone wall and a variable sloped fill from the top of the wall to the house wall. This slope will be at a slope between 2:1 and 1 %:1 to 5 feet down from the house main floor. This will leave 5 feet of the house showing below the main floor which was previously approved. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, Vice President RCE 26120 25834 Narbonne Ave., Suite 210, Lomita _ 90717 tel (310) 325-5580 fax (310) 325-5581 • Photo A U.S.G.S. Historic Topo Dated 1927 Photo B Google Earth Photo Dated 2007 Preconstruction Photo C 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking southwest showing 1 31:1 or steeper rear slope at #38 Eastfield Photo D 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking south showing 114:1 or steeper rear slope at #38 Eastfield '__4*._" - Photo E 2015 photo by Bolton Eng. Looking west showing 134:1 steep rear slope at #42 Eastfield Go earth feet' rs g.iJl 1..1 I 1 .I.1 Y 1 .I._ .100 Photo F 2015 photo by Google Earth Looking southeast showing the steeper rear slopes at #38, #40 and #42 Eastfield Photo G 1963 photo by U.S.G.S Showing a riding ring on the lower pad at at #38 Eastfield _,, earth feet; meters—" 200 '80 Photo H 20091photo by Google Earth Showing improvements on the lower pad prior to construction at #40 Eastfield Y St MEMORANDUM Date: August 3, 2015 To: Rolling Hills City Council From: Nicholas Tonsich, Property Owner/Applicant RE: 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA t' .. _. C I 't. - is-•� ; -�� AUG 01i 2015 City of Rolling Hills By 1. Project-P-arameters: Within structural coverage (less than 20%) and structural/flat coverage (less than 35%: 28.28%). House and garage at grade is 5,793 sf on 1.4 acre lot. Two properties down (36 Eastfield Drive) the residence over 6,500 sf on 1.1 acre lot. Soil Disturbance: Goal to protect natural contours and topography of the City. Project lot is a cut and fill slope manufactured by the City for construction of Eastfield Drive and filling of a canyon. DISTURBANCE STUDY AREA PREVIOUS PROPOSED HOUSE PAD 13,990 17,395 COOTES DRIVEWAY 2,560 2,560 STABLE PAD 5,088 5,088 SLOPE REPAIR 0 3,030 TOTAL AREA I 21,638 28,073 PERCENT INCREASE FROM PREVIOUS HOUSE 22.92% 2. Lower lot: Installed permitted service road for reduced construction disturbance on Eastfield. Service road is the basis for much of the perceived soil disturbance. Reality is the dirt from approved basement excavation was placed on top of existing slope to create service road. 3. The slope currently requesting approval was approved with the December 27, 2011, Grading Plan. When the larger basement was approved (March, 2013) the County told the project engineer that a new grading plan was not necessary. Grading barely encroaches outside of the "line of grading" on approved grading plan (5-8 ft). 1 • • 4. This original application to the Planning Commission included approval of the electrical room under the loggia, as well as two staircases (driveway to electrical room and center Tight well to lower lot). After several field trips and revisions, the Planning Commission unanimously (4-0) voted that a resolution be drafted for approval that included the electrical room, staircase to the electrical room, and a staircase from mid -slope to the lower lot. At the next Planning Commission meeting the absent Commissioner was able to persuade the Commission to request a new resolution eliminating the mid -slope stair case to the lower lot. 5. County evidently has no objection to stairs or slope (See below email). Hi Ross, Please contact Yolanta conceming these issues. Usa Naslund, PE LA. County Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division East Los Angeles 7:3011:30am on Tuesdays (323) 820-6500 Lomita Office 8-11:30 on Thursdays (310) 534-3760 LET US KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING! http://dpw.lacounty.gov/go/bsdsurvey —Original Message — From: Ross Bolton(mailto:rbolton@boltonengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 201510:21 AM To: Usa Naslund Cc: Nicholas Tonslch; Doug Morris Subject: 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills Usa, We request the following information regarding the recent, proposed work on the rear, north slope at 40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills: Does Los Angeles County Engineer agree that the rear, north slope at 38 Eastfield and 42 Eastfield are greater than 2:1? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the staircase from the motor court to the electrical room at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to leaving in place the lower, untouched, north slope at 40 Eastfield? Does LA County Engineer have any objection to the "wedge" of dirt from the basement level to 5 feet down from the loggla level being replaced at a variable slope of from 1.5:1 to 2:1 under approved conditions? We appreciate your review of this project and your assistance. Ross N. Bolton Bolton Engineering Corp. 25834 Narbonne Ave. Suite 210 Lomita, Ca 90717 310 325-5580 2 • • 6. Slopes of adjacent properties are as steep or steeper than the slope I am asking to restore and/or keep in its former condition. Bolton verified the slopes. Historical photos show lower riding ring. 7. There is no other viable location to put leach field or septic tank. Impact of Requiring Rebuilding Lower Slope 1. Eliminates riding ring that was purchased with original house. Rebuilding the entire slope effectively eliminates 10,000 sf of usable land and riding ring/horse set up (already approved by City). Rebuilding the entire slope would effectively make the septic system unusable (already approved by City and County). Large reduction in property value. 2. What is the net gain to the City? Slope consistent with adjacent slopes. Existing 1950s slope not natural; result of cut and fill to create Eastfield Drive. Slope not visible from any public area or street. Doubtful any lay person can determine the difference between 1.5:1 versus 2:1 with the naked eye. 3 1 • • Railet, qcal INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-A Mtg. Date: 03/23/15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 862 - 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1172 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). AND CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE TO CONSIDER THE PORTIONS OF THE APPLICATION NOT APPROVED IN RESOLUTION NO. 1172. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 13, 2015. BACKGROUND At the March 9, 2015 City Council meeting members of the City Council by a vote 4-1, with Councilmember Hill objecting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting a partial approval in Zoning Case No. 862, 40 Eastfield Drive of the requested changes to the previously approved development at 40 Eastfield Drive and continued deliberation on two items, as follows: 1. The proposed stairway from the building pad level to the electrical room located at the basement level, and ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • 2. Re -grading of the rear portion of the lot behind the residence (between the residence and Outrider Road). The City Council directed the applicants to study alternative methods of grading in the rear area of the lot to achieve to the maximum extent practicable a 2:1 slope gradient without having to construct retaining walls; and to restudy the entrance to the electrical room, so that to eliminate the stairs from the upper pad. The enclosed Resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions, including that any further modifications or changes to the project or to the property must be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; that the void space between the inner and outer basement walls not be converted to any usable use and remain empty at all times; and to require a landscaping plan. The Resolution specifies that the approval contained in the resolution does not include an approval of the grading of the lower lot area and the stairs to the electrical room. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1172 partially approving the requested modifications and changes to a previously approved project at 40 Eastfield Drive; and continue deliberation and decision of the two remaining items to the April 13, 2015 City Council meeting, or until such time as the applicant submits the requested information. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • RESOLUTION NO. 1172 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In August 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify a previously approved project, approved in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. In August 2014, the applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally approved project. The request for modification includes additional grading above the residence, additional grading and not to exceed 5' high wall along the south side of the residence, where the wall would encroach up to 9 feet into the side yard setback, two additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the garage by two feet and re -grading the previously approved driveways, additional not to exceed 3' high retaining wall along the re -graded driveway, depressing the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduce the size of the swimming pool to accommodate the requested porches so that the structural coverage of the lot is maintained at less than 20%, relocate the service yard, construct outside stairs to the basement from the house level, construct an electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocate the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceed the disturbance of the lot, and re -construct the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road) which would exceed 2:1 grade. Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 2'/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Section 4. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, the City Council at their January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings. Section 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 9, 2015 in the field and at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 9, 2015, and on March 9, 2015. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice Resolution No. 1172 1 • • was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 29, 2015. 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, including City engineers, neighbors and applicant's engineer and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road and 12 Outrider Road. Section 6. The City Council finds that additional information is required before a final decision may be issued regarding two aspects of the project: 1) Variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade and 2) Site Plan Review approval of stairs providing access to the electrical room (collectively referred to as the "Deferred Items"). However, the Deferred Items are physically distinct from the balance of the requested approvals and deferral of their final resolution should not preclude the applicant from commencing development in reliance on the remaining approvals in the interim. Therefore, the City Council's action in Zoning Case No. 862 at this time does not include the Deferred Items, whose final disposition is hereby deferred until the applicant has complied with the following: A. The applicant is directed to work with the appropriate County personnel to identify alternative methods of grading that would bring the rear slope as close to 2:1 grade as possible, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. B. Identify alternative methods of access to the electrical room that would eliminate the proposed stairs, including alternate grading, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. Section 7. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the Planning Commission to require a site plan review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. This project received such a condition during previous reviews of the development. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for more grading, lowering the garage finished floor, additional covered porches, lowering of the driveway, additional retaining wall along the driveway, electrical room addition outside of the footprint of the basement, reduction of the size of the building pad area, lowering of a portion of the basement for a wine cellar, relocation of the set aside area for future stable and corral and reduction of the swimming pool the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements except that a variance is requested for a 3' - Resolution No. 1172 • • 5' high retaining wall in the side setback. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to roadway easements. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,485 square feet which equals 29.0% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways, which will aid in drainage of the lot and storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad or within the residence, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that they will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. C. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the modifications to the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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 proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for 59.4% disturbance of the net lot area, the City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 1172 • • A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the topographic nature of the subject property is such that the slope above the garage must be regarded to accommodate the relocated service yard and the lowering of the garage and driveways, in order to retain the previously approved 5' high retaining wall along that portion of the building pad. The additional grading at the south side of the residence (in the side yard setback) is necessary to allow for a walkway around the residence, as it is required by the Zoning Code. The grading complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. Per the Zoning Ordinance, such grading of slopes is considered disturbance and when added to the previously approved variance for disturbance of 49.8%, the total disturbance would be 59.4%. Additionally, due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not included in the net lot area calculations, therefore considerably diminishing the size of the lot, against which the disturbance is calculated. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.070. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the method of construction, previous approvals of this project and the current modifications to the structures and walls to accommodate neighbors' request to relocate the service yard and allow for a flat area around the side of the residence also has an impact on the disturbed area. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles as well as provide a flat area on the side of the residence. D. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order relocate the service yard and lower the garage area, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant, as the grading is necessary to comply with the city's requirements and grading standards of the Building Code. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case. Section 10. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it Resolution No. 1172 4 • • states that maximum height walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height and walls 3-feet high or higher, except under certain circumstances, may not be located in setbacks. In addition, Section 17.12.020 states that basements are defined as a floor level below the first story of the primary residence, which includes garage. The applicant requests Variances for a basement electrical room outside the first story of the residence, and a retaining wall not to exceed 2' to 5' high to encroach up to 9' into the south side yard setback. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is narrow and terraced with a relatively small building pad, where the terrain slopes quite drastically to a lower portion of the lot. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the residence at the 20' side yard setback line, in order to meet the City's requirement that a level path be provided around a residence, the applicant requests to level out an area in the side setback to gain access around the first level of the residence. To accomplish this path a not to exceed 2' to 5 ` high retaining wall is necessary, which is to be located up to 9 feet in the side yard setback. A portion of this wall existed prior to construction of the new residence and was approved to remain when the original application for this project was being considered. Due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot and the location of the residence, it is difficult to find an area for electrical facilities. This house warrants a large electrical facility and the electrical company prefers that it be readily accessible for servicing. Short of placing the electrical room inside the residence, which would not be accessible to utility company employees, there is no other place to locate such a facility. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The proposed construction is intended to meet City requirement to provide a path along the entire perimeter of the residence and provide a permanent solution for access to the electrical utility boxes. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The wall in the side setback will be screened by vegetation and provides access around the residence. The proposed construction will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots constrain certain development, where the letter of the law cannot be met. The requested construction, subject to this Variance is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution No. 1172 • • F. 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. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby grants partial approval of a Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 862, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated March 19, 2015. E. This project including all hardscape and driveways shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development, shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading and construction permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan check review and on all subsequent plans, including job site plans. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project, as approved herein. Additional evaluation of the project by the Building Department staff and additional permit fee may be required and shall be paid by the applicant. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 20.0% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes a 450 sq.ft. future stable. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,220 square feet or 28.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. Resolution No. 1172 • • I. The size of the electrical room located outside the footprint of the residence, below the loggia, shall not be greater than 48 square feet. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. There shall be no access from the interior of the electrical room to the basement area, except to the light well. J. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, as well as the driveways shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturer specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Department. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be approved by the RHCA and recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 23,648 square feet or 59.3% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable, corral pad and access. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,386 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 55.6%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading for the entire project shall not exceed 6,479 cubic yards of dirt total. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed and shall not exceed 3,418 cubic yards. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 185 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer, selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. P. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall along the residential building pad located west and southwest of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade, except that the wall surrounding the trash enclosure may be 6 feet in height. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). Additional wall not to exceed 35 feet in length and between 3' high and a curb is hereby approved along the driveway. The driveway may be re -graded and lowered as shown on the grading plan dated February 24, 2015 as reviewed by the Fire Department. R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall also be at 1077. The residence basement shall be at 1063 FF, except that the wine cellar may be 3' lower. The garage basement shall be at 1067 FF. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. Resolution No. 1172 7 • • S. Other than the area for the electrical room, the void space between the wall of the living portion of the basement and the outer wall under the footprint of the loggia not be converted to a usable space and shall remain empty and unoccupied space at all times. T. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this requirement. The applicant provided a cash deposit for third party certification, as required by the previous approval, for the scope approved previously. Should additional costs be required for certification of the additional scope of work approved herein, including additional grading, the applicant shall deposit additional funds with the City. U. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 458 square feet as measured along the water line. V. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. W. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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.2ov/lox/main.nhn?suite=safety&na!e=hazard definitions#FIRE It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. X. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade, except that due to its location against the proposed 5' high retaining wall, the rear wall may be 5' in height. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Y. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning unit. Z. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution. The Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. AA. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at any time shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, at planting time shall be a minimum of 15 gallon in size or larger. Resolution No. 1172 8 • • AB. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas and reconstructed staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the additional grading. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. If any trees are planted, they shall be of such species as not to grow higher than the ridgeline of the residence. AC. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AD. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AE. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AG. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AI. 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. AJ. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. Resolution No. 1172 9 • AK. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AL. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre - construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. AN. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed. AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AP. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2015. B. ALLEN LAY MAYOR 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. 1172 10 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1172 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 23, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1172 11 8(4 Raeewf qe,y4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5B Mtg. Date: 03-09-15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER )° APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 COAST GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE REPORT RESPONSE REGARDING DEPRESSION FOR WINE CELLAR FEBRUARY 9, 2015 STAFF REPORT 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for a new residence, garage and basement, grading and reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing driveway. Specifically, the proposed modifications entail requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the footprint of the first story, re -grading and construction of a 3'-5' wall on the side of the residence in the side yard setback, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional driveway walls and re -construction of slopes which would in some places exceed the maximum permitted 2:1 grade. ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • 2. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and held a public hearing in the field on February 9, 2015 and at their evening meeting also on February 9, 2015. Staff from Los Angeles County Public Works Department was present at the meetings and provided input. 3. Enclosed with this staff report is the February 9, 2015 staff report to the City Council showing the details of the proposed project. This current staff report addresses the concerns expressed by the City Council at the February 9 meetings and information requested by the City Council, the applicant's responses and the effect the proposed method of re -grading would have on the grading and disturbance of the lot. 4. At the February 9, 2015 public hearings members of the City Council expressed concerns with several aspects of the proposed project and requested additional information. Members of the City Council directed the applicant to work with LA County grading engineers to come up with the best solution for a slope as close to 2:1 grade as possible. In addition, the following information/verification was requested: a. Provide reasons to depress a portion of the basement additional 3 feet and substantiate the claim that it was property constructed and resulted from field conditions. b. Provide information and plan for the re -grading of the south-west side of the yard (side setback, behind the house) to show how the request to create a flat area along that side would affect the wall and the corner of the basement on this side of the house, and height of walls. c. Provide information regarding the reasons for locating the septic tank in the proposed location. d. Provide Fire Department approval for the proposed revised driveway. e. Substantiate the claim that there is water close to the surface in the area of the proposed stable set aside. f. Substantiate the information that a 2:1 slope and not steeper will result from re -grading the slope above the residence. The applicant's engineer will address the City Council at the hearing. In short however, the following explanations were submitted and will be elaborated on at the meeting: Regarding the re -grading of the lower slope: The applicant's engineers looked at various options and with the revised soils and geology recommendation they are proposing to install a 5' high keystone retaining wall approximately 14' from the face of the residence and 10' from the face of the light well. In relation to the existing site conditions, the wall will be placed at the top of the slope (elevation of 1063) and backfilled at 2:1 to the face of the house where the exposed wall of the loggia will not be ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • greater than 5'. The grading of the slope between the 5' keystone wall and house is proposed at 2:1 to minimize the amount of disturbed area and to also allow for proposed reconstruction of the slope to ensure stability. There is also further information on this item in the report prepared by the Soils Engineer/ Geologist. The LA County grading engineer finds this solution feasible to achieve as much 2:1 slope as possible and meet slope stability, as long as it matches the recommendations of the soils engineer and GMED can approve it. In addition, a pathway from the top of the pad to the lower area was previously cut along the rear of the property that resulted in greater than a 3- foot cut. They are proposing to rectify this by restoring the slope to 2:1 in the location of the un-permitted cut and retain a narrower foot path. The County grading engineer will be present at the meeting. a. A letter from the contractor addresses the bedrock depth within the basement area. Also attached are inspection reports showing that the soils and geotechnical engineers inspected the footings/bedrock and concurred with the method of construction and the letter from Coast Geotechnical briefly addresses the basement area. b. The applicant submitted revised elevation and grading plan for the side of the house showing the connection and elevations not to exceed 5' in height of the wall at the corner. The wall is then reduced in size to 4' and then 3' as it goes around the side. The slope in the location of the 5' wall (below it) will be 2:1 in all locations other than in the immediate vicinity of the limit of grading where it is slightly steeper in order to "catch" the existing grade. c. A letter from Soils Engineer/ Geologist addresses the location of septic tank. d. Fire Department approval of the revised driveway was submitted to staff. e. A letter from Soils Engineer/ Geologist addresses the presence of water at the north side of the property. f. A cross section of the slope above the house shows a 2:1 slope and the slope will be certified after completion of grading and shown on final plan. Per the original resolution of approval, the City required that all grading and structures be reviewed and certified by a third party engineer. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 5. The net lot area of the parcel, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 6. With the proposed method of grading of the lower area of the lot and the side of the house the grading and disturbance of the lot will change since the February 9 proposal as follows: ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • Disturbed Area of the lot will be 28,313 square feet or 71.4% (previously proposed 80.1%); and the total grading quantity will be Note: The RHMC includes "remedial grading or temporary disturbance" in the disturbed area of a lot. However, if an area disturbed through temporary grading is brought back to the original condition, then that area is not counted as disturbed. Since the applicant proposes to return portion of the rear to the pre -construction state, the disturbed area will be reduced to 28,313 square feet of the lot from 31,870 square feet, reducing the disturbance to 71.4%. The remaining development standards will stay the same: Residential Building Pad Coverage: 12,386 square feet pad- coverage of 55.6% Future stable pad: 919 square feet — coverage of 49% for 450 sq.ft. stable (only potion of the pad within setback is counted) Structural Lot Coverage : 7,922 square feet or 19.97% (max 20% permitted) Total Lot Coverage (structures and flatwork): 11,485 square feet or 29%, (excluding pavers on driveway and parking pad); (max 35% permitted) This modification entails additional grading for a total (previously approved and currently proposed) of 4,741 cubic yards cut and 1,198 cubic yards of fill for a total grading quantities of 5,939 cubic yards with 3,418 cubic yards to be exported. CONCLUSION 7. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 8. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for re- grading the slope behind the house. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • 10. The City Council may act to uphold, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action or remand it back to the Planning Commission for further review. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK COAST GEOT•HNICAL; INC. 1200 West Commonwealth. Fullerton. CA 92833 • Ph: (7141870-1211 • Fax: (7141870-1222• email:coasteeoteccnsbcelobalatet March 3, 2015 Mr. Nick Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • E MAR• 0 4 2015 City of Rolling Hills W.O. 318606-12 ay Subject: Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California Dear Mr. Tonsich: Pursuant to your request this addendum report has been prepared to address certain items within a February 11, 2015 letter from the City, for Zoning Case No. 862, and to address current proposed restoration/reconstruction of the rear descending slope. The project civil engineer has requested that we provide input on the following items from the February 9, 2015 City letter. Provide information re.eardine the reasons for Iocatin& the septic tank in the proposed location. • Location of a septic system is dependent on the physical layout of the property and the subsurface conditions. Initially a location is chosen based on required setbacks as stated in Table K-1 of the UPC, the preference of having a gravity fed system, access to construct the system, and future access to service the system. As the project evolved over the years several stages of exploration and testing have been performed assessing different areas of the property for a septic system. The current location in the southern portion of the lower pad was selected as it complied with all setbacks, provided construction and future service access, met County guidelines for a disposal system, and provided the location that was professionally opinioned to have the most favorable subsurface conditions. While the location of the septic tank can be moved, the actual seepage pits must be placed at the test locations shown on Figure 2 of our September 19, 2011 report. Substantiate the claim that there is water close to the surface in the area of the proposed stable set aside • Exploration by previous site consultants in this area found groundwater at 30 feet below ground surface. The project civil engineer has requested clarification on the current proposed grading scenario addressing the slope that descends below the rear of the residence and to provide comment on bedrock depth within the basement area. Restoration of rear descendingslone Our understanding is that the current proposed plan is as follows: • Restore the lower pad area and lower slope area to original undisturbed grades and to reconstruct the upper slope area. Restoration of the lower slope area and lower pad will require removal of . COAST GEOT•HNICAL., INC. • Mr. Tonsich 2 W. O.318606-12 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report March 3.2015 stockpiled soils. Adequate removal can be verified by the civil though surveying and the soils engineer through visual observations. After removals the exposed surfaces would require minimal remedial grading for drainage and to improve slope surface conditions. The scope of remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading, but is anticipated to consist mostly of just track rolling finish grades. • A variable height MSE wall is then proposed in the upper slope area. Prior to wall construction some remedial grading of the existing level area that extends out from the basement level will be required. The scope of remedial grading will be field determined based on observations made by the soils engineer at the time of grading. • After completion of remedial grading the MSE wall may be constructed and the area between the back of the MSE wall and basement wall backfilled and a 2:1(H:V) slope constructed. • Typical construction is depicted on our appended Revised Geologic Section AA'. Actual construction will be dependent on a plan prepared by the project civil engineer. • This scenario is considered geotechnically acceptable, as are others. The fmal method chosen for restoration of the corral and rear slope area, and reconstruction of the upper slope area, will be dependent on issues outside the purview of the geotechnical consultant. • Final plans are subject to the review and approval of the soils engineer. Additional recommendations could be provided at that time. Bedrock devth within the basement area Excavations for basement foundations were deepened as needed to comply with project geotechnical recommendations for bedrock embedment. The depth to bedrock varied across the site but generally deepened southeast to northwest and southwest to northeast. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 Todd D. CEG 19 2 p 04/16 6),0 TODD D. HOUSEAL• No.1914 CERTIFIED Nj ENGINEERING .Zr y GEOLOGIST COAST GEOTLOHNICAL, INC. i Mr. Tonsich 3 Revised Addendum Geotechnical Report REFERENCES W. O. 318606-12 March 3. 2015 1. Geologic Investigation of Proposed New Residence, #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-02, dated October 26, 2010. 2. Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, Califomia; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-03, dated March 29, 2011. 3. Revised Response to First Geologic Review Sheet for #40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California, Califomia; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O.318606.04, dated July 13, 2011. 4. Report of Percolation Feasibility Study for Proposed Residence at #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-05, dated September 19, 2011. 5. As Built Rough Grade Geologic Report for #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O.318606-06, dated December 17, 2012. 6. Response to County Geologic Review Sheet for Proposed Garage Shoring and Caissons for 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-07 dated December 22, 2013. 7. Acceptance of Geotechnical Responsibility and Addendum Report for SIope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-08, dated July 11, 2014. 8. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, Califomia; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 9. Clarification of Addendum Report for Slope Restoration at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-09, dated February 1, 2015. 10. Geotechnical Recommendations for Proposed Paving Stone Section for Proposed Driveway, 40 Eastfiled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-10, dated February 10, 2015. I1. Addendum Geotechnical Report for 40 Eastfiled Drive, Rolling Hills, California; by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., W.O. 318606-11, dated March, 2015. 0 1120 - Eastheld 1100 •—• 1080' 1060 1040 1020 • 1000 — Tm • Ex. Costing deepened to bedrock Tm Scale 1" —30ft. (H-W) REVISED GEOLOGIC SECTION A -A' 2:1(1 :V) slope Proposed MSE wall Shows grade to be reestablished Estimated stockpile r.. d COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. P/L Outrider WO. 318606 Figure 2 • • DOUGLAS MORRIS CONSTRUCTION GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR Date: March 3, 2015 To: Rolling -Hills City Council From: Doug Mon -is, General Contractor for 40 Eastfield Subject. Construction of Wine Cellar Tasting Room The foundation for the rear basement retaining wall for 40 Eastfield Drive was constructed as follows: Generally, the bedrock on the property undulates and is not at a consistent depth. We were required to place the footing for the retaining walls 1S" into bedrock or compacted fill. We preferred to place all the footings into bedrock and not have the possibility of differential settlement if a portion of the footing were on compacted fill. MAR 0 5 2015 City of Rolling Hills By In the area of the wine cellar, the bedrock was deeper which gave us the.opportunity to construct the wine cellar tasting room down 3 feet from the main basement floor. The top of the retuning wall footing is finished as the floor stab in this area. The original design called for, framing the floor of the wine cellar up a few feet and then have it step down into a lower tasting room. Because of the lower bedrock which required a 17 feet high retaining wall in this area (elicit Bolton Engineering designed and the structural design was checked by the County) a natural lower area resulted. A small portion of this lower area was used for the 3 foot lower tasting room area. Attached is the Daily Observation Report by Todd Nouseal, •Geologist for the project. This Report is for the footings for the basement retaining walls. The Report does not identify the depth of bedrock, but does state that the required embedment into competent bedrock was acceptable. These depths were determined by the observations of the Geologist and Soils Engineer on their site visits. The report also shows an enlarged footing for the wine cellar for the deepen footing. This is the extent of my knowledge of the area which included the proposed wine cellar tasting room. The deepened footings occurred in other areas also. If the bedrock wasn't at this lower level in this area, we would have not thought about lowering the finished floor for the wine cellar tasting room area, and merely framed the floor up and then back down to the tasting area to give the effect of descending into the lower room. Because of the required embedment into bedrock it provided the opportunity to construct the wine cellar tasting room at this Iower elevation. Thank you foryoti consideration, Doug M tris, General Contractor 4918 CAME1t1NO ST. LAKEWOOD, CA90712 ST LTC. tl 452831 562-634-4804 310-72t-1131 cell 1.^r_T��xai!as-.�.�cnmr ;.f:�T�(�:4r:y) -"N i�,x;• v...... .:: .. . C bAST L '£CHr]ICAL INC. — :,? 4 r s. 14747 Artesia Blvd., Suite 1-D, La Mirada, CA, 90638 Ph: (714) 521-0169 or (714) 521-2927 Fax: (7 4) 521-0179 Daily Observation Report Client 1nn./s.r�� Address rf(7 R., ,,/ 1T(fl1 • MAR 05V. City of Rollirilfi113 By 1.m.Q Date //Pr Name Footin) ❑ Key Way ❑ Grading ❑ Swim Pool 0 Trench 0 Other Test No. Location Job Progress and Activity: 1 • • Commep j 1. Acceptable Elev. or Depth \t Moisture Dry Test Soil Content Density Relative p.c.f. Compaction Type Type itrz,74,7 et' .w .+I ,.r ... r w r .... - r.. L. ❑ Unacceptable Daily Observation Report - Reprint of the description on the form Coast Geotechnical Inc: Address: #40 Eastfield, Rolling Hills dated: 4/18/2012 Observed the footings depicted below to be acceptable from a geologic viewpoint — Footings show required embedment Into competent bedrock — Footing bottoms were to be compacted to the satisfaction of the soils engineer — Footings are geologically approved. By Todd Housea I • • v"dN SOILTECH CONSULTANT Geotechnical Engineering 3140 West Main Street, Alhambra, California 91801 (626) 282-6838 (Tel.) (626) 270-4142 (Fax) (818) 399-3382 (Mobile) Email: swnsoiltech@gmail.com Notice of Field Observation Date 4I)-I r''J_ ~;`7r,.-`t15Ir2 `T1„;f Time 35r.�Pr. 7:30! Project Name 1x,k .. 1 Ref. t k,im. —'11 Address 40 I=G--4;c.\A 1 ive- \\;i A ,AA-, Requested by`'4 `' Met with Notice left with SWN Soiltech Consultants Report dated Plan by We have observed MAR. Cl b 2015 City of Rolling Hills By dated I It \/ Approved Not Approved See Below General Comments and Conditions of Approval 1 �0..VY , .I C [.c `� � . C ✓1 •t'ta (r ,/v� .art, � 'Far r� `\cc:,4 \7� w'c V,P• lv'� �` 'C'1 ✓'' L I'C"�w`lX .("1 (}Lq'�,i.'T'L Additional Site Visit ✓Required ¢t Required For SWN Soiltech Consultants, Inc. Total Field Engineering Hours Time Approved by Total Fib3d Technician Hours +71 • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TO: FROM: THRU: Raagf gegi INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 02/09/15 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 REQUEST AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan' Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824, which included the following: grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards was to be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot covered porch across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. The previous approvals for this project contain a condition that the Planning Commission must review any modification to the project or further construction. 2. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and held a field trip to the site earlier in the day on February 9, 2015. Staff from Los Angeles County Public ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. 1 opY7 • • Works Department will be present at the meeting to answer questions members of the City Council may have. 3. The City Council may act to uphold, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action or remand it back to the Planning Commission for further review. BACKGROUND 4. The residence is currently under construction. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the covered porch but outside the footprint of the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional driveway walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed the maximum permitted 2:1 grade, and specifically as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and the basement light well, depression of 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. ii. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet of walls, 3' high wall along the driveway, and 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. B. Variances for: i. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and re -grading the slopes below and above the residence ii. Reconstruction of higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, to up to 1.5:1 grade iii. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement iv. An extension to a previously approved, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 5. Below is a detailed description of the various requests, as they appear on the property beginning at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive, and follows the list of changes that the applicant submitted: (except that item # 9 was withdrawn) ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 2 py . • A. #4&#5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance — (250 sq.ft. area). Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C. #11, #19 & #20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10&#12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the covered porch, (the covered porch extends along the entire length of the rear of the house) and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the covered porch was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the covered porch are necessary for support of the covered porch. Upon completion, the walls, on the exterior, were to be exposed maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the covered porch above the basement and the basement. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 4 1 • • wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain flat area and be able to access the covered porch from the side yard and around the residence. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,390 cubic yards was to be exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock- pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre -construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage. With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and not re -graded, and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. According to the applicant's engineers, the current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,895 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • . I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction the City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the percolation studies showed that the septic tank could only be located in the area of the previously set aside stable and corral. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. A separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 7. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 9. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/ decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 6 (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 10. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 11. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 12. DRAINAGE: According to the applicant's engineer, drainage from the upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to sheet flow with no collection devices. The engineer states, that as the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes to the amount of impervious surfaces it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. The County grading and drainage engineer will review the grading plans and reports when the project is re -submitted for plan check. 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 14. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two-year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. • April 2012 foundation only permit issued (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 - 1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials, it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence were not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement (incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 10 • • iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 2 1/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading must be brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2' Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Feb. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • Dec. 2013 over-the-counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 11 TO: FROM: THRU: ailRallatf qe0 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 3-A Mtg. Date: 02/09/15 FIELD TRIP HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 REQUEST AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION, 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824, which included the following: grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards was allowed to be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot covered porch across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. The previous approvals for this project contain a condition that the Planning Commission must review any modification to the project or further construction. ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. • • 2. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and scheduled a field trip to the site. Staff from Los Angeles County Public Works Department will be present at the meeting to answer questions members of the City Council may have. 3. The City Council may act to uphold, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action or remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. BACKGROUND 4. The residence is currently under construction. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the covered porch but outside the footprint of the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional driveway walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed the maximum permitted 2:1 grade, and specifically as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and the basement light well, depression of 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. ii. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet of walls, 3' high wall along the driveway, and 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. B. Variances for: i. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and re -grading the slopes below and above the residence ii. Reconstruction of higher than permitted grade of the slope below the 'residence, to up to 1.5:1 grade iii. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement iv. An extension to a previously approved, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 0 5. Below is a detailed description of the various requests, as they appear on the property beginning at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive, and follows the list of changes that the applicant submitted: (except that item #9 was withdrawn) A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance - (250 sq.ft. area). ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C. #11, #19 & #20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the covered porch, (the covered porch extends along the entire length of the rear of the house) and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the covered porch was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the covered porch are necessary for support of the covered porch. Upon completion, the walls, on the exterior, were to be maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the covered porch above the basement and the basement. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain flat area and be able to access the covered porch from the side yard and around the residence. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,390 cubic yards was to be exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre -construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage. With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and not re -graded, and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. According to the applicant's engineers, the current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,895 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • ! A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction the City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the percolation studies showed that the septic tank could only be located in the area of the previously set aside stable and corral. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. A separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 7. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE, 8. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 9. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 10. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 11. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 12. DRAINAGE: According to the applicant's engineer, drainage from the upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to sheet flow with no collection devices. The engineer states, that as the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes to the amount of impervious surfaces it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. The County grading and drainage engineer will review the grading plans and reports when the project is re -submitted for plan check. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 14. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive i • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 1146.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 11.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 10 • • 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two-year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. • April 2012 foundation only permit issued (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 - 1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials, it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence were not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement (incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/ grading must be brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2nd Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Feb. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/ dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • Dec. 2013 over-the-counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • Rr:EtfE Thoughts that should be explored JAN 12 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Originally the slope on the property was approximately 2 to 1, of the grading on the property prior to the beginning of construction. When the contractor started the project, he decided to dig out deeper than the original plans, with a claim that he had to do this because he had get into bedrock. He also decided to dig even deeper for a wine cellar. When he was doing the grading he decided to blow the front of the slope totally out and was told to compact the area but didn't do it. In addition he changed the grading in the front yard. Which in effect created a grading of almost one hundred percent of the property which is not allowed? When he requested his architect and engineer to draw plans and a site plan to his specifications, which was an increase in size and location. They prepared numerous drawing for Mr. Tonsich which was given to both Mr. Tonsich and the Builder Doug Morris. Some were in preliminary form and may have been submitted to agencies without the consent of the Architect. When the structure was being built, Mr. Tonsich and his builder had designs drawn to have larger beams in placed so that he can remove walls and post and if this is done the property will have a two story appearance. In the construction process, it is my belief that the a wall was built without an adequate footing to support the structure above but a second wall was built with the appropriate footing and structural support which would allow the interior wall to be removed and expand the interior of the house. Not the walls are in place but can be easily removed without anyone knows or seeing. The original plans, called that the side of the building facing outrider be covered with dirt and the dirt placed against the concrete wall so that the house didn't have a two story appearance. If allowed to have his 11/2 to 1 slope this will not allow the dirt to be maintained without moving down the slope, It such a slope were to be allowed by the City, there should be a flat area immediately adjacent to the house structure which would not allow the dirt to fall away from the house. If he is allowed to have the 1 1/2 to 1 he would accomplish what he is trying to accomplish which is to have a larger pad at the base of the property. What should have happened is that he should have accomplished all grading prior to the construction of the house and then there would not be any issues happening now? What he has done is to try and boot strap changes and variances. It is my understanding that the county requires when there is grading greater than 30 feet; the county requires that at 25 feet a 6 foot bench (flat area) with drainage is required. It doesn't appear that this was proposed in the plan or even taken into consideration. I really question where anyone is requiring codes to be followed in this construction or if the homeowner can just do what he wants. There have been so many stop orders, eyes closed and building continues because no one looks at the whole project. I would expect the city would require all codes to be followed, including the not allowing two story houses, grading of almost one hundred percent of the lot. It is so surprising that the builder and the city would allow a steel beam to be installed without it being permitted by the county. It was actually given county approval after the installation. • • He wants more room in his front yard area and he had a plan drawn which would give him this and part of the plan was the lowering of the garage by two feet which was a change from the original plan and which would require more grading and a redesign of the driveway. If granted it would have a possible effect of creating a higher than 5 foot retaining wall between his house and Eastfield. To allow a staircase would even draw more attention to the size of this house and the look of a two story. Our walls being built without permits or plans on the property, the models shown and original plans don't conform to the property as built, would suggest that the city and staff and building officials have a personal inspection of the property. September 16, 2014 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • 40 EI&ETF[ELD DR[ ZONING CASE NO. 862 n R 1 ir. ivo-" SEP. 1 6 2614 citm of Rollinq Hills By 1 rrlJ The following requests contained in Zoning Case No. 862 are summarized in the same order as listed at page 4, paragraph 3, of the Staff Report: 1. Adiust Grade on Main Driveway to 40 Eastfield to 20% Justification: Allows for more uniform grade and slope in parking area and reduces unnecessary construction of steps. Required: Approval of 20% driveway grade, Building Pad Coverage from 53.5% to 55.6% (Project is currently less than 20% structural coverage and 30% total coverage). 2. Depress Garaae By 2' Justification: Allows for more uniform grade and slope in parking area and reduces unnecessary construction of steps. Required: Additional grading of 162 cy. 3. Two Additional Covered Porches Justification: Porches are depicted on all architectural approvals but were inadvertently omitted from the building calculations. Required: Approve reduction in swimming pool from 750 sf to 458 sf, Pool decking increased by 223 sf. i • 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE ZONING CASE NO. 862 4. Use of 48 SF Under Loggia for Electrical Panel Storage Justification: 1) SCE requires separate access to electrical panel/cabinet; 2) SCE prepared and approved plan for placement of panels in area under loggia; 3) Placement of electrical cabinets under loggia requires no additional lot coverage. Required: Approval of 48 sf (could be reduced to 30 sf — just enough to house the cabinet/panel) in the basement not under the residence 5. Construction of 36" Wide Staircase from Driveway to Basement Light Well Justification: 1) Replaces previously existing pathway to lower lot on property; 2) provides more easily accessible exit from basement compared to climbing ladder out of light well — this is a life/safety improvement to the previously approved plan for occupants not physically able to climb the ladder; 3) potential access for SCE if approved as electrical cabinet location. Required: Approval of 80 sf for paved walkway/stairs. 6. Construction of .' Wide Landing and Stai rom Center Light Well Justification: 1) Replaces provides m • climbing lad the previously climb the lad previously e re easily r out ing pathway to lower lot on property; 2) essible exit from basement compared to Tight well — this is a life/safety improvement to roved plan for occupants not physically able to Required: Appro - I of additional •' retaining wall and 265 sf of paved wa ay/stairs. 7. Replace Slope Below House at 1.5:1 with ngineered Key/Slope Justification: 1) Replaces slope to original pre -construction condition; 2) Replacement of slope was condition of prior City building approval; 3) Provides area for required horse set up; 3) provides area for septic system; 4) Soils Engineer states the slope can safely be restored at 1.5:1 . Required: 2 TO • 40 EASTFIELD D RIA ZONING CASE NO. 862 8. Approval of 252 sf Excavation in Basement for Wine Room 9. Extension of Wall at Rear of Residence by 15' 10. Placement of Service Yard 11. Designation of Construction Road as Access to Stable and Corral 12. Relocate Future Stable and Corral to North of Lower Lot • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK COAST GEO•CHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich Addendum Geotechnical Report AU6 1 1 2 2 City of Roiling Hills W. O. 318606-08 --------- - July 11.20I4 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. has reviewed project reports and is in substantial agreement with the findings and conclusions of these reports and those referenced by it, and accepts responsibility for project soil engineering as of July 1, 2014. PURPOSE OF REPORT A descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed. This area is depicted on a plan prepared by Bolton Engineering as item 15. The plan is appended as Figure 1. PROPOSED SLOPE The indicated slope will be restored to a 1.5:1(H:V) grade to match preconstruction grades. SLOPE STABILITY Gross and surficial stability of the site was shown by SWN Soiltech to be acceptable. Restoration of the subject slope does not alter the conditions under which this analysis was performed. Where slopes are built steeper than 2:1(H:V) it is industry standard to reinforce the outer slope surface with geogrid and to utilize a higher degree of compaction to enhance long term performance. Regardless of the current and or as built condition of site the client is advised that there is an undefined inherent risk of some type of slope failure with all hillside property. Placing a level on this risk is not possible due to influences beyond• the control of this consultant and individual property owners, and the lack of site and regional subsurface knowledge. Some influences that can affect future slope stability are rainfall, neighbor and site irrigation practices, runoff waters, seismic activity, improper grading activities, improper building activities, poor site drainage, leakage of underground utilities, poor landscaping practices, failure to clear out terrace drains and inlets of debris, uncontrolled rodent burrowing, and other factors. The property owner has the responsibility to maintain slopes in a manner that promotes stability. Slope maintenance guidelines are appended GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION Slope restoration is considered feasible from a soils and geologic engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. General comments are as follows. • Earthwork is anticipated to consist of needed removals for required keyway and benching. • Geogrid will be required at two foot intervals to enhance slope performance. COAST GEOTCINICAL, INC. • Mr. Tonsich 3 W. O. 318606-08 Addendum Geotechnical Report July 11.2014 • Placed fills for slope reconstruction will need to be compacted to a minimum of 93% relative compaction. • The County typically has restrictions on construction over a geogrid zone and within ten feet of a geogrid zone. To accommodate slope reconstruction geogrid will need to be placed up to the residence. Additionally the plan indicates a stair case being constructed. We do not oppose the construction of the staircase provided encountered geogrid is not torn or ripped and where encountered is woven into adjacent improvements. PROPOSED GRADING Grading will be performed in accordance with approved final grading plans. All recommendations within this report are subject to change based on review of these plans. The following are general grading recommendations, which shall be incorporated into the project where applicable. TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION Where fill slopes are planned they shall have a minimum ten -foot wide keyway excavated to a minimum depth of two feet into competent material at the toe. The keyway bottom shall be sloped back to the key heel where a subdrain shall be placed. The subdrain shall have solid outlet pipes every fifty feet. As the fill slope is constructed the fills shall be benched into competent existing earth materials. Fill slopes shall be built no steeper than a 1.5:1 (H:V) gradient. All fills placed and slope faces shall be rolled to show a relative compaction of 93 percent or better. These are minimum recommendations and are subject to change based on review of plans. Fills shall be placed in six to eight inch loose lifts moisture conditioned to 3-4% over optimum moisture content, and then mechanically compacted to a minimum of 93% relative compaction. A typical fill slope construction detail is appended as Plates S and S.1. To enhance the performance of the steepened slope, geogrid shall be incorporated into construction of the slope. Geogrid similar to Miragrid-XT or equivalent shall be placed every two feet in elevation, and shall extend from the slope face a minimum of eight feet horizontally into the slope. The geogrid shall be placed on a level bench, pulled taut, and then pinned prior to fill placement. Toward the top of the fill slope, the slope width will narrow down to zero and the geogrid width will also narrow down progressively. The County policy is to designate the area over geogrid reinforcement and ten feet in back of the geogrid as a restricted use area. For this project the geogrid will be placed up to the existing residence. The civil engineer shall show on the grading plan the geogrid area as restricted use. COAST GEO.CHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich 4 W. O. 318606-08 Addendum Geotechnical Renort July 11.2014 For this project the restricted use area shall apply to any future improvements and not this shown on the approved grading plan. Required cuts needed for grading are not anticipated to adversely affect support of the residence as foundations for the affected side of the basement were deepened to about elevation 1050 to 1055. Proposed grading is depicted on the appended Geologic Section A -A', Figure 2. This section is modified from the one presented in the referenced reports to show existing conditions and proposed conditions. GENERAL GRADING NOTES Areas to be graded shall be cleared of vegetation, debris, foundation structures, and underground systems prior to grading. Excavations shall be backfilled according to the soil engineering recommendations. Generally unsuitable material shall be removed to competent earth material and the void backfilled with soils compacted to a minimum of 90% or better. The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading". Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 40, and shall be tested and approved by our laboratory. The soil engineer and geologist shall review grading plans. All recommendations are subject to modification upon review of such plans. 111 STATEMENT It is the opinion of the undersigned, a duly registered geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, that based on our work as outlined in this report, and if constructed in accordance with our recommendations and properly maintained, (1) the proposed site improvements will be safe against hazard from landslide, settlement, or slippage and that (2) the proposed slope construction will have no significant adverse effect on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site. The nature and extent of tests conducted for purposes of this declaration are, in the opinion of the undersigned, in conformance with generally accepted practice in the area. Test findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis. • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich 5 W. O.318606.08 Addendum Geotechnical Retort Juh' 11.2014 LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than a year, or changes in ownership. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project, and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 9G- e--770/4-elZ-1 Todd D. Ho seal CEG 19 144u:\ TODI) D. MOSEAL No. 1914 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING .mot GEOLOGIST 0 ci���F;�� wl a, 1L. C>/ CO - f-tilizort•0065.1 ..•<•, ••w Revised Sit Plan I e" Nick and Angela Tonstdl 0•6••••••••••• error --cc i!‘ . 1. } i tdlNiLi?a ':1i:'t•ifi ":je , woelijifij'l;''fE +iIwo- w► ji11�1 jtl i . `6i i • 20.21. Sale 1" —30ft. gpsrciav 1 fool, 1B cm Bolton Engineering Corp. M.Ie. fMw • Tedee.etrey7..M. r Oe}tm tmP1O Pom we310�25-SSeG r.es.mnitaPW tocesso' @- 44. w 1� REVISED SITE PLAN [•+ RAGES TC nPPROVEDRJtNP6t RE9Ct17T1b 87n0(X: c o a naoreorw..wm fesc+.ctnwmenacnroeiwvaauww..a[ro.eavnar.rwe•ca+nua.eouam evu. 1 V}gWar6pgArpaaw.7"..wr•.mew eso.ro..r newQaeve[*very otAbrevaug vawriaP km/, MOM aQUteAmr•..l A OMC req Wy O•. 3 tmeaTgW eM.ee1Mepe•fl.1p1.W.Mt..Y•/.0..s•617ro mw.e:owm WWI Rut/01I.A..eMed me Ww.rs«oo•.a.aaw•see a.....m..•n,.wumtaroe.aucoma•Ape west ea.•e.RmraMcrAf• PWRM.tmweao•.Wmca •Da.YVlreaeerne e•u.esoo•a.a W.we swowe. t. • 44CmCava rtWRt CCTocrw•Weaaetcwtr!meoweuthema r ar ro.ae A•va.aw.mww.v.r co w.cretw.osnm.a.• r..wcauev. P SIWITOUlbb1MY.OFifRYM..ON.tteeXTO tat.O6b m.Ml...eb.'.Mea?R laK IUILM000./Vot moos.®MEMU. P /MTht•Meeaf. r.tellcA:wc.. tlealeOO.AAµ NOINtteinen *cot ra.O1001,4021010••re.A03 IM4 e.•ooa+mpPmaTvrDart+O.PacTa.•aCOIfrwf s•RIMSKOWI Dilataan) s.bL mOMIX•Ce.Y.c MIME • AMAMIf•raM)•em•(Ace•Y.Rastw•w•emrtmrIDaRM.ee.melS•a Aaa+leTmel.easa•..n.e•W twa.miowev.e.wuwaa • KolItom•MY•rrtee..Ots.•et.M••0•Ut Yewuee.Itt•It WOW. Ott Ares.•• mvlwuO•tie uo It IN1•a1nMOrtM.•O.0i.mYOlnfi/ l0.}a?COMM am.e.m •VISMIMI, Mewl, Tl.Oet 4. I, mama oeoErmmua•ese.rroetu..r.ree wete•.O,OW MCM.SW/rAee>Su .a taVICIMPoaICISIM OUNME roeealt.MOIL @wvnrmaa oeagamu% a•aa.a.WUY.xWneeeewearo.mrr•eeae.ma•e.eRa.ar.m•o•a .. w.ael a3kuxrarer.e3w.cwu00411smmer.n.r•elom.anan..emsro10ea.wo41.3r.•o. a ores.Panitmoa•Puvewsowe.f.w••w.vl•atatmtro•e•evenom ...ta s tmpiwe:+N6ca.s*t•ai.att.trfe•�'..o•+•I .cac...it m 1 �.3*t, *swu •••• .ca ......+vaoacwrmora mare.meowtru.amumennem .oetao.r+Rene.e•r•n.prawn.e.C.O.eowla.mm•a.eeaaaeemrnncovmentaaNc .t letmwcrserre,V Mteatumbeaaa e WORMS o®oe•tc•eawDmee.M aaaer41•401.3.:ceN.aewu.6ewswno.l•elwo•aere.wacC cu R MTo•a•vmagmtaacwMIleCRr•rtwoaaq•Rvppsen.emwo.w.esAoaa• it eemawneaa0l(•(ewy.Ptnar; 1.nee•t.l.opeaM4lpalyROAR01.411 M.lt II r.tt[Kb016.e.wettiniest{e•09.0Ae41•004t,pe wnryi./...f..v. COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC W.O. 318606 Figure 1 TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER COMPACTED FILL GEOGRID EVERY 7WO VERTICAL FEET WITH WIDTH AS SPECIFIED IN REPORT FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE 2' MINIMUM -- KEY DEPTH cf • . KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED - BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ' ••• ~ 1 ! VARIABLE _ • • A�%1?.i - MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK • OR 2% SLOPE (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W.O. 318606 •Plate S i • • TYPICAL FILL SLOPE SUBDRAINS DESIGN FINISH SLOPE OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT: 50' MAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL 1 15' MAX. 1 2' CLEAR ••. wAY/).YlAw/.Y/,,YG . "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) APPROVED EQUIVALENT: BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED - BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DETAIL "A" 4-INCH DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. SIEVE SIZE • PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 NO.4 26-40 NO.8 18-33 N0.30 5-16 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTEDTO SUEDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW DETAIL "A" "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 1/2" 100 NO.4 50 NO.200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT MINIMUM OF 50 FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL ONE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL. PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES __ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH AMINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. NOTES: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, !NC. 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED w WITH ON -SITE SOIL �� O.318606 Plate S" 1 • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Maintenance of Hillside Home Sites Recommendations During the wet weather season, homeowners become concerned about the stability of their building sites. In general, modern design and construction practice minimizes the probability of serious slope failure. The grading codes of the local jurisdiction (cities and counties) in California concerning filled land, excavation, terracing and slope construction are among the most stringent in the country and if followed, are adequate to meet most natural occurrences. Therefore, the concern of the homeowner should be directed toward maintaining slopes, drainage provisions and facilities so that they will perform as designed. The following discussion, general recommendations and simple precautions are presented herein to help the homeowner maintain his hillside -building site. The general public often regards the natural terrain as stable - "terra firma". This, of course, is an erroneous concept. Nature is always at work altering the landscape. Hills and mountains are worn down by mass wasting (erosion, sliding, creeping) and the valleys and lowlands collect these products. Thus the natural process is toward leveling the terrain. Periodically (over tens of millions of years) major land movements build mountains and erosion tends to level the terrain. In some areas these processes are very slow and in others they are more rapid. Development of hillsides for residential use is carried out, in as far as possible, to enhance the natural stability of the site and to minimize the probability of instability resulting from the grading necessary to provide home sites, streets, and yards. This has been done by the developers and designers on the basis of geologic and soil mechanics investigations. In order to reduce the risk of slope failures, the slope and drainage provisions and facilities must be maintained by the homeowner. Homeowners are accustomed to maintaining their homes. They expect to paint their houses periodically, replace wiring, clean out clogged plumbing, repair roofs, etc. Maintenance of the home site, particularly on hillsides should be considered on an even more serious basis. In most cases lot and site maintenance can be taken care of along with landscaping and can be carried out less expensively to the homeowner than repair after neglect. Most hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from poor drainage, over irrigation, a broken pipe, cesspool or wet weather causes most damage. Wet weather is the largest cause of slope problems, particularly in California where rain is intermittent, but may be torrential. Therefore, drainage and erosion control are the most important aspects of home site stability. These provisions must not be altered without competent professional advice and maintenance must be carried out to assure their continued operations. We offer these procedures as a checklist to homeowners: 1. Check roof drains, gutters and down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on your location, if you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falls from the roof eaves and collects against foundation and basement walls, which can be undesirable. 2. Clear surface and terrace drainage ditches and check them frequently during the rainy season, with a shovel, if necessary. Ask your neighbors to do likewise. 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3. Be sure that all drainage ditches and sub -drains have outlet drains that are open. This should be tested during dry weather. Usually this can be done simply with a hose. If blockage is evident, you may have to clear the drain mechanically. 4. Check all drains at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. 5. Keep subsurface drain openings (weep -holes) clear of debris and other material, which could block them in a storm. 6. Check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. 7. Watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any, irrigation is required. Over - saturation of the ground is not only unnecessary and expensive, but can cause subsurface damage. 8. Watch for water backup of drains inside the house and toilets during a rainy season since this may indicate drain or sewage blockage. 9. Exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site was constructed to meet certain standards, which should protect against any natural occurrence, if you do your part in maintaining them. 10. Care and maintenance of hillside homes includes being sure that terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the top of cuts, or fill slopes are not blocked. They are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally, a little shovel work will remove any accumulation of dirt and other debris, which may clog the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace, it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up on their properties may eventually reach yours. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and seep into the terraces, creating less stable slopes. 11. Water should not be permitted to collect or pond on your home site. Ponded water will tend to either seep into the ground loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow onto the slope and cause erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. 12. Roof drains and gutters or down spouts should not be connected to subsurface drains. Rather, arrange them so that water either flows off your property in a specially designed pipe or it flows out onto a paved driveway or the street. The water then may be dissipated over a wide surface or preferably be carried away in a paved gutter or storm drain. Subdrains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during a heavy rain. 13. Water should not be allowed to spill over slopes, even where this may seem to be a good way to prevent ponding. This trends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill slopes, can cut away carefully designed and constructed sites. 14. Loose soil or debris should not be left on or tossed over slopes. Loose soil soaks up water more rapidly than compacted fill. In addition, it is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide when laden with water and may even affect the soil beneath it. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that loose fill is not dumped above your property. • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. r- 1 S. Water should not be discharged into subsurface blanket drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing of water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if located close to slopes, may cause slope failure. 16. Surface water should not discharged into septic tanks or leaching fields. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different .purpose,but they will tend, because of their construction, to accumulate additional water naturally from the ground during a heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as subsurface subdrains, and is doubly dangerous since their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. In many areas the use of septic tanks should be discontinues as soon as sewers can be made available. 17. Slopes should not be over -irrigated. In some areas ice plant and other heavy ground cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increase in weight and weakening of the near surface soil. Planted slopes should be located, where possible, in areas where they will be adequately irrigated by rainfall. A landscape architect familiar with hillside work should design slope planting. 18. Water should not be allowed to gather against foundation, retaining walls and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by subdrains to carry of the excess moisture. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through the wall causing dampness and leakage inside the basement. It also may cause the soil adjacent to the foundation to swell resulting in structural damage to walls and footings. 19. New fill placed behind walls or in trenches should not be compacted by flooding with water. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine grained soil, but could damage the wall foundation. 20. Hoses and sprinklers should not be left running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance ground saturation, which may cause damage. 21. Ditches that have been graded around your house or the lot pad should not be blocked. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not let water become ponded above slopes by blocked ditches. 22. Rodent activity should be controlled to mitigate burrowing and or loosening of surficial soils. Rodent burrows should be filled with compacted cohesive soils to mitigate infiltration of waters that could cause slope instability. 3 t0. • • GEOLOGIC SECTION A -A' • 1 I b 1 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W.O. 318606 Figure 2 TO: FROM: THRU: • aiRaiksif qice4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5-A Mtg. Date: 02/09/15 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR (I)6' RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 1/YLC APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 29, 2015 REQUEST AND CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824, which included the following: grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards was to be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot covered porch across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. The previous approvals for this project contain a condition that the Planning Commission must review any modification to the project or further construction. 2. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, at the January 12, 2015 meeting the City Council took this case under jurisdiction and held a field trip to the site earlier in the day on February 9, 2015. Staff from Los Angeles County Public ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. Works Department will be present at the meeting to answer questions members of the City Council may have. 3. The City Council may act to uphold, overturn or modify the Planning Commission's action or remand it back to the Planning Commission for further review. BACKGROUND 4. The residence is currently under construction. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the covered porch but outside the footprint of the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional driveway walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed the maximum permitted 2:1 grade, and specifically as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and the basement light well, depression of 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. ii. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet of walls, 3' high wall along the driveway, and 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. B. Variances for: i. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and re -grading the slopes below and above the residence ii. Reconstruction of higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, to up to 1.5:1 grade iii. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement iv. An extension to a previously approved, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 5. Below is a detailed description of the various requests, as they appear on the property beginning at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive, and follows the list of changes that the applicant submitted: (except that item #9 was withdrawn) ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance — (250 sq.ft. area). Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C." #11,#19&#20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the covered porch, (the covered porch extends along the entire length of the rear of the house) and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the covered porch was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the covered porch are necessary for support of the covered porch. Upon completion, the walls, on the exterior, were to be exposed maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the covered porch above the basement and the basement. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain flat area and be able to access the covered porch from the side yard and around the residence. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,390 cubic yards was to be exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock- pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre -construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage. With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and not re -graded, and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. According to the applicant's engineers, the current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,895 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction the City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the percolation studies showed that the septic tank could only be located in the area of the previously set aside stable and corral. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. A separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 7. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 9. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas / decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 10. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 11. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 12. DRAINAGE: According to the applicant's engineer, drainage from the upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to sheet flow with no collection devices. The engineer states, that as the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes to the amount of impervious surfaces it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. The County grading and drainage engineer will review the grading plans and reports when the project is re -submitted for plan check. 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 14. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 0 • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive ® • • CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two-year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. • April 2012 foundation only permit issued (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 - 1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials, it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence were not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement (incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 2 1/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading must be brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2" d Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Feb. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size / dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • Dec. 2013 over-the-counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • Thoughts that should be explored RCEtVD E JAIJAN 12 2015 City of Rolling Hills By Originally the slope on the property was approximately 2 to 1, of the grading on the property prior to the beginning of construction. When the contractor started the project, he decided to dig out deeper than the original plans, with a claim that he had to do this because he had get into bedrock. He also decided to dig even deeper for a wine cellar. When he was doing the grading he decided to blow the front of the slope totally out and was told to compact the area but didn't do it. In addition he changed the grading in the front yard. Which in effect created a grading of almost one hundred percent of the property which is not allowed? When he requested his architect and engineer to draw plans and a site plan to his specifications, which was an increase in size and location. They prepared numerous drawing for Mr. Tonsich which was given to both Mr. Tonsich and the Builder Doug Morris. Some were in preliminary form and may have been submitted to agencies without the consent of the Architect. When the structure was being built, Mr. Tonsich and his builder had designs drawn to have larger beams in placed so that he can remove walls and post and if this is done the property will have a two story appearance. In the construction process, it is my belief that the a wall was built without an adequate footing to support the structure above but a second wall was built with the appropriate footing and structural support which would allow the interior wall to be removed and expand the interior of the house. Not the walls are in place but can be easily removed without anyone knows or seeing. The original plans, called that the side of the building facing outrider be covered with dirt and the dirt placed against the concrete wall so that the house didn't have a two story appearance. If allowed to have his 11/2 to 1 slope this will not allow the dirt to be maintained without moving down the slope, It such a slope were to be allowed by the City, there should be a flat area immediately adjacent to the house structure which would not allow the dirt to fall away from the house. If he is allowed to have the 1 1/2 to 1 he would accomplish what he is trying to accomplish which is to have a larger pad at the base of the property. What should have happened is that he should have accomplished all grading prior to the construction of the house and then there would not be any issues happening now? What he has done is to try and boot strap changes and variances. It is my understanding that the county requires when there is grading greater than 30 feet; the county requires that at 25 feet a 6 foot bench (flat area) with drainage is required. It doesn't appear that this was proposed in the plan or even taken into consideration. I really question where anyone is requiring codes to be followed in this construction or if the homeowner can just do what he wants. There have been so many stop orders, eyes closed and building continues because no one looks at the whole project. I would expect the city would require all codes to be followed, including the not allowing two story houses, grading of almost one hundred percent of the lot. It is so surprising that the builder and the city would allow a steel beam to be installed without it being permitted by the county. It was actually given county approval after the installation. • He wants more room in his front yard area and he had a plan drawn which would give him this and part of the plan was the lowering of the garage by two feet which was a change from the original plan and which would require more grading and a redesign of the driveway. If granted it would have a possible effect of creating a higher than 5 foot retaining wall between his house and Eastfield. To allow a staircase would even draw more attention to the size of this house and the look of a two story. Our walls being built without permits or plans on the property, the models shown and original plans don't conform to the property as built, would suggest that the city and staff and building officials have a personal inspection of the property. September 16, 2014 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • 413 EASTFIELD DMA ZONING CASE NO. 862 2614 c4c of Rolling Hills By FETl pia The following requests contained in Zoning Case No. 862 are summarized in the same order as listed at page 4, paragraph 3, of the Staff Report: 1. Adiust Grade on Main Driveway to 40 Eastfield to 20% Justification: Allows for more uniform grade and slope in parking area and reduces unnecessary construction of steps. Required: Approval of 20% driveway grade, Building Pad Coverage from 53.5% to 55.6% (Project is currently less than 20% structural coverage and 30% total coverage). 2. Depress Garaae By 2' Justification: Allows for more uniform grade and slope in parking area and reduces unnecessary construction of steps. Required: Additional grading of 162 cy. 3. Two Additional Covered Porches Justification: Porches are depicted on all architectural approvals but were inadvertently omitted from the building calculations. Reauired: Approve reduction in swimming pool from 750 sf to 458 sf, Pool decking increased by 223 sf. i ! 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE ZONING CASE NO. 862 4. Use of 48 SF Under Loggia for Electrical Panel Storage Justification: 1) SCE requires separate access to electrical panel/cabinet; 2) SCE prepared and approved plan for placement of panels in area under loggia; 3) Placement of electrical cabinets under loggia requires no additional lot coverage. Required: Approval of 48 sf (could be reduced to 30 sf — just enough to house the cabinet/panel) in the basement not under the residence 5. Construction of 36" Wide Staircase from Driveway to Basement Light Well Justification: 1) Replaces previously existing pathway to lower lot on property; 2) provides more easily accessible exit from basement compared to climbing ladder out of light well — this is a life/safety improvement to the previously approved plan for occupants not physically able to climb the ladder; 3) potential access for SCE if approved as electrical cabinet location. Reauired: Approval of 80 sf for paved walkway/stairs. 6. Construction of .' Wide Landing and Stai rom Center Light Well Justification: 1) Repla provides m climbing lad the previously climb the lad es previously e re easily r out ing pathway to lower lot on property; 2) essible exit from basement compared to light well — this is a life/safety improvement to roved plan for occupants not physically able to Required: Appro - I of additional .' retaining wall and 265 sf of paved wa ay/stairs. 7. Replace Slope Below House at 1.5:1 with ngineered Kev/Slope Justification: 1) Replaces slope to original pre -construction condition; 2) Replacement of slope was condition of prior City building approval; 3) Provides area for required horse set up; 3) provides area for septic system; 4) Soils Engineer states the slope can safely be restored at 1.5:1 . Required: • 40 EASTF[ELD DR[Vi ZONING CASE NO. 862 8. Approval of 252 sf Excavation in Basement for Wine Room 9. Extension of Wall at Rear of Residence by 15' 10. Placement of Service Yard 11. Desianation of Construction Road as Access to Stable and Corral 12. Relocate Future Stable and Corral to North of Lower Lot • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Effi rl L`F' Ems, ii , ra i�iYi it i v�.t COAST GEO .CHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich Addendum Geotechnical Report 2 City cI Rolling Hills W. 0.318606-08 July 11.2014 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. has reviewed project reports and is in substantial agreement with the findings and conclusions of these reports and those referenced by it, and accepts responsibility for project soil engineering as of July 1, 2014. PURPOSE OF REPORT A descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed. This area is depicted on a plan prepared by Bolton Engineering as item 15. The plan is appended as Figure 1. PROPOSED SLOPE The indicated slope will be restored to a 1.5:1(11:V) grade to match preconstruction grades. SLOPE STABILITY Gross and surficial stability of the site was shown by SWN Soiltech to be acceptable. Restoration of the subject slope does not alter the conditions under which this analysis was performed, Where slopes are built steeper than 2:1(H:V) it is industry standard to reinforce the outer slope surface with geogrid and to utilize a higher degree of compaction to enhance long term performance. Regardless of the current and or as built condition of site the client is advised that there is an undefined inherent risk of some type of slope failure with all hillside property. Placing a level on this risk is not possible due to influences beyond the control of this consultant and individual property owners, and the lack of site and regional subsurface knowledge. Some influences that can affect future slope stability are rainfall, neighbor and site irrigation practices, runoff waters, seismic activity, improper grading activities, improper building activities, poor site drainage, leakage of underground utilities, poor landscaping practices, failure to clear out terrace drains and inlets of debris, uncontrolled rodent burrowing, and other factors. The property owner has the responsibility to maintain slopes in a manner that promotes stability. Slope maintenance guidelines are appended GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION Slope restoration is considered feasible from a soils and geologic engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. General comments are as follows. • Earthwork is anticipated to consist of needed removals for required keyway and benching. • Geogrid will be required at two foot intervals to enhance slope performance. COAST GEOTSHNICAL, INC. • Mr. Tonsich 3 W. O. 318606-08 Addendum Geotechnical Report Julv 11.2014 • Placed fills for slope reconstruction will need to be compacted to a minimum of 93% relative compaction. • The County typically has restrictions on construction over a geogrid zone and within ten feet of a geogrid zone. To accommodate slope reconstruction geogrid will need to be placed up to the residence. Additionally the plan indicates a stair case being constructed. We do not oppose the construction of the staircase provided encountered geogrid is not torn or ripped and where encountered is woven into adjacent improvements. PROPOSED GRADING Grading will be performed in accordance with approved final grading plans. All recommendations within this report are subject to change based on review of these plans. The following are general grading recommendations, which shall be incorporated into the project where applicable. TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION Where fill slopes are planned they shall have a minimum ten -foot wide keyway excavated to a minimum depth of two feet into competent material at the toe. The keyway bottom shall be sloped back to the key heel where a subdrain shall be placed. The subdrain shall have solid outlet pipes every fifty feet. As the fill slope is constructed the fills shall be benched into competent existing earth materials. Fill slopes shall be built no steeper than a 1.5:1 (H:V) gradient. All fills placed and slope faces shall be rolled to show a relative compaction of 93 percent or better. These are minimum recommendations and are subject to change based on review of plans. Fills shall be placed in six to eight inch loose lifts moisture conditioned to 3-4% over optimum moisture content, and then mechanically compacted to a minimum of 93% relative compaction. A typical fill slope construction detail is appended as Plates S and S.1. To enhance the performance of the steepened slope, geogrid shall be incorporated into construction of the slope. Geogrid similar to Miragrid-XT or equivalent shall be placed every two feet in elevation, and shall extend from the slope face a minimum of eight feet horizontally into the slope. The geogrid shall be placed on a level bench, pulled taut, and then pinned prior to fill placement. Toward the top of the fill slope, the slope width will narrow down to zero and the geogrid width will also narrow down progressively. The County policy is to designate the area over geogrid reinforcement and ten feet in back of the geogrid as a restricted use area. For this project the geogrid will be placed up to the existing residence. The civil engineer shall show on the grading plan the geogrid area as restricted use. COAST GEO•CHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich 4 W. O. 318606-08 Addendum Geotechnical Renort July 11.2014 For this project the restricted use area shall apply to any future improvements and not this shown on the approved grading plan. Required cuts needed for grading are not anticipated to adversely affect support of the residence as foundations for the affected side of the basement were deepened to about elevation 1.050 to 1055. Proposed grading is depicted on the appended Geologic Section A -A', Figure 2. This section is modified from the one presented in the referenced reports to show existing conditions and proposed conditions. GENERAL GRADING NOTES Areas to be graded shall be cleared of vegetation, debris, foundation structures, and underground systems prior to grading. Excavations shall be backfilled according to the soil engineering recommendations. Generally unsuitable material shall be removed to competent earth material and the void backfilled with soils compacted to a minimum of 90% or better. The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading". Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 40, and shall be tested and approved by our laboratory. The soil engineer and geologist shall review grading plans. All recommendations are subject to modification upon review of such plans. 111 STATEMENT It is the opinion of the undersigned, a duly registered geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, that based on our work as outlined in this report, and if constructed in accordance with our recommendations and properly maintained, (1) the proposed site improvements will be safe against hazard from landslide, settlement, or slippage and that (2) the proposed slope construction will have no significant adverse effect on the geologic stability of property outside of the building site. The nature and extent of tests conducted for purposes of this declaration are, in the opinion of the undersigned, in conformance with generally accepted practice in the area. Test findings and statements of professional opinion do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis. COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Tonsich 5 W. O. 318606.08 Addendum Geotechnical Report July 11.2014 LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than a year, or changes in ownership. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project, and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the Contractors and Subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tarng Chen RCE 54011 Todd D. Ho seal-.. CEG 19 I p A .1.q 6` TOUT) U.II0IJSE:AL No.191.1 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING R yr GEOLOGIST Q\� CAI ." is 1 1 :Ottizs. Revised Ste Plan .....►e.rer 1 v.1 R• l'''.. Nick and Angels Tonslth 104.43'07'E . ,:stL?e .T ,11I1 iiii(�t?Ii;l iiFr7[f :`a . and „wove ors . / ensue 'rrwer �gatlE 1 Seale 1^ -r 3011. lee Bolton Engineering O.d• szn �O I..we3103255 40 Mix 110425.5141 • o- y� iCP- • REVISED STYE PLAN /041 uatr,Esmal'aagvEOatwvrcn. 1:1411xpcx: t .naenOtO�dG0.O.4Y.lar4G.Rwc, w"et Awe wtwM,trownvnlar//we�tL Yli✓i re m.. ae atots. i nJrRa aetue ewanc.. aliMRrtriaow acuM...Mww.Sr6V2 L`lmelwbr.wtnK p.p..ro[ r new. rl On6mre .9o.cw.ldw. '1. I a.. • • • • wOaw%m.AOLO.arWecm+[a.o.+e•wn we.ew wroawo[nw000eew wcaniw..wer TIC btaJoto WO" p..+nrox.aw.etr.w+lovrt.w.we cut wow. ww owu.awauno-slw+c ea.Imanmronwnl *MAW60Nrwr ..,4 ea1fl Wwlr.e•.R.wrt0lfAee♦r>mtrAlt[..00n81,r portO.w OOWMCf name pmo er..a.ame OW. teTio*.';faMwOrdYA.ONw6GO.wAto.e.6>C4iwna.WRw.'M Ste! MLr0VtlM1..R em.wmns I .enlsorw.tr.e~03611146Trlmptaw[..ro.�o[ro.0 e.re.a.reepwa..rm.ewr<t . V OawoOof era 1ewoMei' m.aw•RIP w.12!! Nn wmY nlml0u.. W e i 1EalwD a lnAliL mmNTwCrto *IA Meet Ammar erwvSrcemocernrd.momm.vew�.ormonrol.e.aema..ereatauitrwex..r..re ro more. V.O. WOrw6 r '.O.M•...a. eproarM..ermet w.tee..aw2lctc....e.•o s•.nwaWw3W/lObaMs .EOOe.\4M4.Gw1 mope.]! V.ONNm..l4 r •elEmrcrw.reMt wwanmarn.oPO[asaa.sVaast*.lwv.amwrKlw+.(m.oceee IrIOwm MVRMOyOt 6 r.A.ar01[pT•a. AOwwwwf0.@.VptIDfF a mAf.rSY.OMEWS R*orMumma A.VaMMT.*. 0il6 T 1,06 WLLdWIile10.4e64...0Sta40e.wpiettq fl .00.40 awe IST0e01J11NTOWSUKLY ONTRo•f[.iO.t4n 6.**4*XLAMCpaALMITY.oIRD..00e1t0i1 K*A.6CM1161100 ...EDSOLSDa4 ..pw.Ol.treAw.w.m... Wflncr,e.r.r.tr.anLLgrou.aX/os ip.ALCDOZ W.ro.ICmrp.r•V.O.[rw .mrrmaccuwarrm0040.amrewua.oVxweawCw.mh.4ueilnaa.prmnxcDenim ao•An t a.emuxsaroRAW e1.10.eeCOWL * naeQ60m.e....0e..04+...wrs.rwr.••o.p.al+Lr.rr.+aoauncwwar.cuRarrenw.ct r mearvmmngq..SYMWrlowewerinVoy* ctw[Vp..1en.[n.pw.wdsfr. 14.416.wii•l� t, wa�v.e.OMep..IIM. T. .n1v>a aThCoOTOISO o.nRw.o.unoauw¢*m1.p.aatr.e.... a*w[.•cwa.wo.wrwwMwaw.r•..a.we..w .vt..ewwev, ° - 1 w.o. 318606 COAST GEOTECHNICAC., INC. Figure 1 • TYPICAL FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER COMPACTED FILL GEOGRID EVERY TWO VERTICAL FEET WITH WIDTH AS SPECIFIED IN REPORT FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE 2' MINIMUM - KEY DEPTH 3' TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED - BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP WIDTH OF FILL AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER • '. • 1 &WA(' L VARIABLE t 1 MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2°4 SLOPE - MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W.O. 318606 Plate S TYPICAL FILL SLOPS SUBDRAINS DESIGN FINISH SLOPE • OUTLETS TO BE SPACED . AT: 50' MAXIMUM INTERVALS.' EXTEND 12 INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FELL f 15' MAX. 2' CLEAR -I "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED — BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 4-INCH DIAMETER NON -PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323) . APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE • PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 NO.4 25 40 NO.8 18-33 NO.30 5-15 NO.50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW DETAIL "A" NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON -SITE SOIL. MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 1 /2" 100 NO.4 50 NO, 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50 FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL ONE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES „ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH AMINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W" O. 318606 Plate S.1 • • COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Maintenance of Hillside Home Sites Recommendations During the wet weather season, homeowners become concerned about the stability of their building sites. In general, modern design and construction practice minimizes the probability of serious slope failure. The grading codes of the local jurisdiction (cities and counties) in California concerning filled land, excavation, terracing and slope construction are among the most stringent in the country and if followed, are adequate to meet most natural occurrences. Therefore, the concern of the homeowner should be directed toward maintaining slopes, drainage provisions and facilities so that they will perform as designed. The following discussion, general recommendations and simple precautions are presented herein to help the homeowner maintain his hillside -building site. The general public often regards the natural terrain as stable - "terra firma". This, of course, is an erroneous concept. Nature is always at work altering the landscape. Hills and mountains are worn down by mass wasting (erosion, sliding, creeping) and the valleys and lowlands collect these products. Thus the natural process is toward leveling the terrain. Periodically (over tens of millions of years) major land movements build mountains and erosion tends to level the terrain. In some areas these processes are very slow and in others they are more rapid. Development of hillsides for residential use is carried out, in as far as possible, to enhance the natural stability of the site and to minimize the probability of instability resulting from the grading necessary to provide home sites, streets, and yards. This has been done by the developers and designers on the basis of geologic and soil mechanics investigations. In order to reduce the risk of slope failures, the slope and drainage provisions and facilities must be maintained by the homeowner. Homeowners are accustomed to maintaining their homes. They expect to paint their houses periodically, replace wiring, clean out clogged plumbing, repair roofs, etc. Maintenance of the home site, particularly on hillsides should be considered on an even more serious basis. In most cases lot and site maintenance can be taken care of along with landscaping and can be carried out less expensively to the homeowner than repair after neglect. Most hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from poor drainage, over irrigation, a broken pipe, cesspool or wet weather causes most damage. Wet weather is the largest cause of slope problems, particularly in California where rain is intermittent, but may be torrential. Therefore, drainage and erosion control are the most important aspects of home site stability. These provisions must not be altered without competent professional advice and maintenance must be carried out to assure their continued operations. We offer these procedures as a checklist to homeowners: 1. Check roof drains, gutters and down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on your location, if you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falls from the roof eaves and collects against foundation and basement walls, which can be undesirable. 2. Clear surface and terrace drainage ditches and check them frequently during the rainy season, with a shovel, if necessary. Ask your neighbors to do likewise. 9C9 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. • 3. Be sure that all drainage ditches and sub -drains have outlet drains that are open. This should be tested during dry weather. Usually this can be done simply with a hose. If blockage is evident, you may have to clear the drain Mechanically. 4. Check all drains at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. 5. Keep subsurface drain openings (weep -holes) clear of debris and other material, which could block them in a storm. 6. Check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. 7. Watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any, irrigation is required. Over - saturation of the ground is not only unnecessary and expensive, but can cause subsurface damage. 8. Watch for water backup of drains inside the house and toilets during a rainy season since this may indicate drain or sewage blockage. 9. Exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site was constructed to meet certain standards, which should protect against any natural occurrence, if you do your part in maintaining them. 10. Care and maintenance of hillside homes includes being sure that terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the top of cuts, or fill slopes are not blocked. They are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally, a little shovel work will remove any accumulation of dirt and other debris, which may clog the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace, it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up on their properties may eventually reach yours. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and seep into the terraces, creating Tess stable slopes. 11. Water should not be permitted to collect or pond on your home site. Ponded water will tend to either seep into the ground loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow onto the slope and cause erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. 12. Roof drains and gutters or down spouts should not be connected to subsurface drains. Rather, arrange them so that water either flows off your property in a specially designed pipe or it flows out onto a paved driveway or the street. The water then may be dissipated over a wide surface or preferably be carried away in a paved gutter or storm drain. Subdrains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during a heavy rain. 13. Water should not be allowed to spill over slopes, even where this may seem to be a good way to prevent ponding. This trends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill slopes, can cut away carefully designed and constructed sites. 14. Loose soil or debris should not be left on or tossed over slopes. Loose soil soaks up water more rapidly than compacted fill. In addition, it is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide when laden with water and may even affect the soil beneath it. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that loose fill is not dumped above your property. 2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 15. Water should not be discharged into subsurface blanket drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing of water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if located close to slopes, may cause slope failure. 16. Surface water should not discharged into septic tanks or leaching fields. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different .purpose,. but they will tend, because of their construction, to accumulate additional water naturally from the ground during a heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as subsurface subdrains, and is doubly dangerous since their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. In many areas the use of septic tanks should be discontinues as soon as sewers can be made available. 17. Slopes should not be over -irrigated. In some areas ice plant and other heavy ground cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increase in weight and weakening of the near surface soil. Planted slopes should be located, where possible, in areas where they will be adequately irrigated by rainfall. A landscape architect familiar with hillside work should design slope planting. 18. Water should not be allowed to gather against foundation, retaining walls and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by subdrains to carry of the excess moisture. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through the wall causing dampness and leakage inside the basement. It also may cause the soil adjacent to the foundation to swell resulting in structural damage to walls and footings. 19. New fill placed behind walls or in trenches should not be compacted by flooding with water. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine grained soil, but could damage the wall foundation. 20. Hoses and sprinklers should not be left running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance ground saturation, which may cause damage. 21. Ditches that have been graded around your house or the lot pad should not be blocked. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not Iet water become ponded above slopes by blocked ditches. 22. Rodent activity should be controlled to mitigate burrowing and or loosening of surficial soils. Rodent burrows should be filled with compacted cohesive soils to mitigate infiltration of waters that could cause slope instability. 3 • GEOLOGIC SECTION A -A' b 1 00 11.4 O al 1 z a COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W.O. 318606 Figure 2 TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: ge4 at e Ra fla if qv/a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-A Mtg. Date: 01/12/15 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER Ple7 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review and Variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824, which consisted of the ZC NO. 862 40 Eastfield Drive. following: grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards is to be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. The previous approvals for this project contain a condition that the Planning Commission must review any modification or further development of the lot. 3. The residence is currently under construction. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the footprint of the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional driveway walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed the maximum permitted 2:1 grade, and specifically as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed 48 square foot electrical room and the basement light well, depression of 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. ii. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet of walls, 3' high wall along the driveway. B. Variances for: i. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and re -grading of the slopes below and above the residence ii. Reconstruction of higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, to up to 1.5:1 grade iii. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement iv. An extension to a previously approved, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 4. The Planning Commission held three public hearings and two field trips to the property. Residents within 1,000 'radius were notified of the hearings and only two attended. One resident, at 8 Outrider objected to the project and his letter is enclosed. The neighbors to the north-west of 40 Eastfield attended all meetings and objected to the location of the service yard and generally they were concerned with the large project and how it is going to affect their property. The applicant relocated the service yard. The Planning Commission, after much deliberation, unanimously adopted the attached resolution approving the project with a condition that any changes to the project or development on the property are subject to their approval. The Planning Commission directed staff to assure that frequent inspections are conducted for this project by the building inspector and staff. 5. The Commission found that this is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deductions of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. In addition, the property has steep slopes and any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes. Also, this project has been ongoing for several years, with various changes having been approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. In some instances, changes have been necessary due to field conditions discovered after construction began. The current proposal was before the Commission because the prior approval requires submission of any further modification to construction or grading to the Commission, and also because the applicant is proposing various changes to the approved plans that would otherwise require site plan review or a variance. While some aspects of the current proposal have already been completed (i.e., the additional 3 feet depth of the wine cellar), others have not. Finally, during the Commission's consideration of the current proposal, the applicant has generally cooperated with the Commissions requests by, for instance, restaking the property for a second field trip and withdrawing a request for stairs and access from the basement to the lower level of the lot in order to minimize the visual impact and relocated the service yard. 6. Below is a detailed description of the various requests, as they appear on the property beginning at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive, and follows the list of changes that the applicant submitted: (except that item #9 was withdrawn) A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance — (250 sq.ft. area). Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C. #11,#19&#20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 1 4 1 swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia, (the loggia extends along the entire length of the rear of the house) and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. Upon completion, the walls, on the exterior, were to be maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the loggia above the basement and the basement. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain flat area and be able to access the loggia from the side yard and around the residence. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 1 1 • below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock- pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre -construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage. With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and not re -graded, and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. The current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,895 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive l�61 • • location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the percolation studies showed that the septic tank could only be located in the area of the previously set aside stable and corral. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 7. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten - foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. A separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 8. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 9. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 10. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 11. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 12. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 13. DRAINAGE: According to the applicant's engineer, drainage from the upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to sheet flow with no collection devices. The engineer states, that as the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes to the amount of impervious surfaces it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. The County grading and drainage engineer will review the grading plans and reports when the project is re -submitted for plan check. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 15. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 16. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes. 17. When reviewing a site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission considers the findings and criteria listed below. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates • environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive 0 • • CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two-year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. • April 2012 foundation only permit issued (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 -1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials, it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence were not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement (incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive • • iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 2 1/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading must be brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2' Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Feb. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size / dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • Dec. 2013 over-the-counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. ZC No. 862 40 Eastfield Drive CHANGES TO APPROVED PLAN PER RESOLUTION 11-35 1. ADJUST DIMENSIONS OF GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR OWNERS CAR.TO BE PARKED. NO CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 698.0 S.F. © 2. LOWER GARAGE BY AN ADDITIONAL 2' TO HAVE IT AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 52 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. 3. MODIFICATION TO GRADING ON SLOPE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND ADJACENT TO GARAGE. CHANGES OCCUR DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE GARAGE AND THE HOLDING OF A 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ALONG WITH DISTURBED AREA CALCULATIONS. ADDITIONAL 110 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. ADDITIONAL 1,145 S.F. DISTURBED AREA. 4. REVISED DRIVEWAY SURFACE TO BE PAVERS. REDUCES PRIMARY DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 563 S.F. TO 0 S.F. AND OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE DECREASES BY 354 S.F. FOR A TOTAL OF 1,942 S.F. 5. ADJUST GRADES ON MAIN DRIVEWAY TO 40 EASTFIELD DUE TO LOWERING OF GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 20% SLOPE. BUILDING PAD AREA IS DECREASED BY 965 S.F. 6. ADDITION OF NEW 48 S.F. ELECTRICAL ROOM UNDER LOGGIA TO ALLOW FOR EDISON TO HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS TO METER AND PANEL. 7. EXISTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WAY FROM OUTRIDER WILL BE RETURNED TO PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITION AT TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION 8. ADDITION OF NEW 3' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY DOWN TO BASEMENT TO PROVIDE EDISON ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL METER AND P EL. ADDITIONAL 80 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. DDITION OF NEW 6' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM THE MIDDLE LIGHT WELL DOWN TO THE SECONDARY PAD. STAIRWAY IS DEPRESSED AND REQUIRES - DDITIONAL RETAINING WALL. ADDITIONAL 265 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 10. REDUCTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SWIMMING POOL SIZE TO 458 S.F. TO KEEP STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BELOW THE ZONING CODE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 20.0%. 11. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO ENTRYWAY. WAS PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 75 S.F. 12. REVISION TO POOL DECKING AMOUNT DUE TO CHANGES IN POOL SIZE. ADDITIONAL 223 S.F. OF POOL DECKING. 13. ADDITION OF 112.5 S.F. OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO MASTER BATH. AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 14. REVISION TO JOIN LOCATION FOR RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE OF HOUSE TO LOGGIA. ALLOWS ACCESS TO LOGGIA FROM SIDE YARD. 15. REVISION TO GRADING OF REAR SLOPE. PROPOSING 1.5:1 SLOPE TO REPLACE SLOPE TO APPROXIMATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS. GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND DISTURBED AREA CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVISED. SOILS ENGINEER-TOBE- REQUIRING THIS:SLOPETO BE BUILT. SEE LETTER FROM TODD HOUSEAL DATED JULY 11, 2014. 215 C.Y. CUT & 215 C.Y. FILL. 550 C.Y. OVER -EX AND 650 C.Y. RE -COMPACTION. ADDITIONAL 6,965 S.F. OF DISTURBED AREA. SEE DETAIL 4, THIS SHEET FOR KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL. 16. REVISION TO OVERALL DISTURBED AREA TO NOW INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY OMITTED LOWER PAD DISTURBANCE & FUTURE STABLE ACCESS. REVISED •DISTURBED AREA IS 31,620 S.F. ( 79.72 %) 17. REVISED LOCATION TO FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL. 18. DEPRESS EXISTING WINE ROOM LOCATION IN BASEMENT BY ADDITIONAL 3 FEET. REVISED VOLUME CALCULATIONS INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 28 C.Y. OF CUT. 19. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH BETWEEN ENTRYWAY AND GARAGE. PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 57 S.F. © 20. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTRYWAY. 21. REVISION TO CONCRETE WALK BETWEEN RETAINING WALL AND GARAGE. ADDITIONAL 43 S.F. OF PAVED WALK. 22. FUTURE STABLE ACCESS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY. MINIMUM OF 6' WIDE AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 25%. ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 330 S.F. TO THE DISTURBED AREA. 23. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. • Revisions O. 0 0 C N c 0 w • co c $— 0 (1) m< =Q1rnCa) WC c c 0) 0 • 6Z W M O •gym CO-5 L', 17, ose /G.r • • • RECEIVED AUG 18 2014 From: John Resich <lresich@aol.com> City of Rolling Hills Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM By To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@citvofrh.net> Subject: Re: Tonisch & 8/19 Planning Commission meeting agenda TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 1 do hereby object to the granting of this variance as it was done because the applicant determined that the conditions were created after the construction and due to circumstances beyond his control, but were anticipated prior to construction and he did not want to request the variance prior to construction as he knew that the planning commission would not grant the easement. This was done with intent to get a sports court after the fact. The construction could have been accomplished as originally drawn but the cut was done so that the Planning Commission would grant an easement. 1 question his intent as he has built the deck so that the wall can be removed and then the house would have a two story condition across the whole back. If you reviewed the construction there is a large beam that was engineered to support the deck with the removal of the block wall which is not structural in nature to my belief. 1 would be highly suspect. 1 will be appearing to object at the time of the hearing. JOHN RESICH 8 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLIJNG HILLS CALIFORNIA • RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of outside stairs to the basement from the house level, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed 2:1 grade, (see detailed list in Section 4 of this Resolution). Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. During construction, administrative approval was granted for a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the south western side of the residence and reduction of the size of the swimming pool by the same amount, and change in the shape but not the square footage of the garage. Resolution No. 2014-19 Section 4. The 137 approval in Zoning Case N.745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Section 5. Currently the applicant is seeking the following modifications, which together with the condition imposed on the previous approvals require Planning Commission consideration of a Site Plan Review and Variances. A. Site Plan Review: Lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet, additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, lowering of the driveway by 2 feet, additional 35 lineal feet of retaining wall along the driveway ranging from a six inch curb to 3' high wall, 132 square feet additional covered porches, 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement under the porch in the rear of the residence, reduce the size of the building pad area, add a new stairway from the motor court to the proposed electrical room and basement, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances: Further exceed the disturbed area of the lot to up to-80.4%; which includes the future access to the stable and the modified slopes below and above the residence, higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is to be restored to 1.5:1 grade, basement electrical room outside the footprint of the first story, and an extension of a previously approved retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the side yard setback. Section 6. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its regular meetings on August 19, September 16, October 21, and November 18, 2014 and in the field on September 16 and October 21, 2014. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and was in attendance together with his representatives. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive and 8 Outrider Road, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 2014-19 Section 8. Sect* 17.46.030 requires a developmen tan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the Planning Commission to require a site plan review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, lowering the garage finished floor, additional covered porches, lowering of the driveway, additional retaining wall along the driveway, electrical room addition outside of the footprint of the basement, reduction of the size of the building pad area, new stairway to the proposed electrical room and to the basement, lowering of a portion of the basement for a wine cellar, relocation of the set aside area for future stable and corral and reduction of the swimming pool the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements except that a variance is requested for a 3'high retaining wall in the side setback. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to roadway easements. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,485 square feet which equals 29.0% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways, which will aid in drainage of the lot and storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad or within the residence, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that they will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. C. Following the approval of a larger house and basement, soils and geology study revealed that the method of construction and previous approvals have an impact on the disturbed area and necessitate grading of the back slopes to steeper than permitted slopes. The soils report indicates that due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls of the basement above the slope, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated due to location of bedrock, and the entire slope must be reconstructed Resolution No. 2014-19 3 from the top of slope in Ser to ensure overall slope stability•erefore, the rear slope needs to be reconstructed, compacted and keyway constructed for stability of the slope, which is considered additional grading and additional disturbance of the lot. D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. In fact, the additional grading will assure that the slopes are reconstructed in a proper manner to assure stability of the lot. E. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for 80.4% disturbance of the net lot area, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the topographic nature of the subject property is such that the reconstructed slopes require a keyway that complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. Per the Zoning Ordinance, such reconstruction of slopes is considered disturbance and when added to the previously approved variance for disturbance of 49.8%, the total disturbance would be 80.4%. Additionally, due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not included in the net lot area calculations, therefore considerably diminishing the size of the lot, against which the disturbance is calculated. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.070. Resolution No. 2014-19 4 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. According to the soils and geology report, the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls for the basement to the bedrock, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability. This action constitutes grading and affects the disturbed area of the lot. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case. Section 10. 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 Municipal Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 15.04.130 MAXIMUM SLOPE, of the Municipal Code, is required because it states that cuts and/or fills shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless the Planning Commission grants a Variance. The applicant is proposing slopes of 1.5:1 steepness. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the maximum slope is necessary because of existing conditions on the lot that requires the area to be reconstructed and keyway constructed to Resolution No. 2014-19 5 assure stability of the slot Unique circumstances applicable lithe subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 15.04.130. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusual situation of the property and the terraced configuration of the lot, where the residential building pad was extended during construction of the basement to reach bedrock. There is not enough vertical distance from the limits of the building pad to the roadway easement on Outrider Road to create gentler slope and incorporate a keyway to assure stability. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. The resulting slopes are necessary as there isn't enough vertical distance between the road and the building pad area to create gentler and less vertical slopes. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facility at issue in this case. Section 11. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because' it states that maximum height walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height and walls 3-feet high or higher, except under certain circumstances, may not be located in setbacks. In addition, Section 17.12.020 states that basements are defined as a floor level below the first story of the primary residence, which includes garage. The applicant requests Variances for a basement electrical room outside the first story of the residence, and a retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the south side yard setback. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: Resolution No. 2014-19 A. There are eillkptional and extraordinary circumices and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is narrow and terraced with a relatively small building pad, where the terrain slopes quite drastically to a lower portion of the lot. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the residence at the 20' side yard setback line, in order to meet the City's requirement that a level path be provided around a residence, the applicant requests to level out an area in the side setback to gain access around the first level of the residence. To accomplish this path a not to exceed 3' high retaining wall is necessary, which is to be located up to 9 feet in the side yard setback. A portion of this wall existed prior to construction of the new residence and was approved to remain when the original application for this project was being considered. Due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot and the location of the residence, it is difficult to find an area for electrical facilities. This house warrants a large electrical facility and the electrical company prefers that it be readily accessible for servicing. Short of placing the electrical room inside the residence, which would not be accessible to utility company employees, there is no other place to locate such a facility. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The proposed construction is intended to meet City requirement to provide a path along the entire perimeter of the residence and provide a permanent solution for access to the electrical utility boxes. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The wall in the side setback will be screened by vegetation and provides access around the residence. The proposed construction will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots constrain certain development, where the letter of the law cannot be met. The requested construction, subject to this Variance is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution No. 2014-19 7 F. The varianSis consistent with the portions Sthe County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 862, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated December 8, 2014. E. This project including all hardscape and driveways shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading and construction permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan check review and on all subsequent plans, including job site plans. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project, as approved herein. Additional evaluation of the project by the Building Department staff and additional permit fee may be required and shall be paid by the applicant. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet. or 20.0% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes a 450 sq.ft. future stable. Resolution No. 2014-19 8 • • H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,220 square feet or 28.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The size of the electrical room located outside the footprint of the residence, below the loggia, shall not be greater than 48 square feet. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. There shall be no access from the interior of the electrical room to the basement area, except to the light well. J. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, as well as the driveways shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturer specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Code. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be approved by the RHCA and recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 31,970 square feet or 80.4% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable, corral pad and access. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,386 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 55.6%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading for the entire project shall not exceed 7,344 cubic yards of dirt total, to include 5,441 cubic yards of cut, and 1,903 cubic yards of fill. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed and shall not exceed 3,418 cubic yards. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 185 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer, selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. P. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall along the residential building pad located west and southwest of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade, except that the wall surrounding the trash enclosure may be 6 feet in height. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). Additional wall not to exceed 35 feet in length and between 3' high and a curb is Resolution No. 2014-19 9 hereby approved along •driveway. The driveway may be rSraded and lowered as shown on the grading plan dated December 8, 2014. R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall also be at 1077. The residence basement shall be at 1063 FF, except that the wine cellar may be 3' lower. The garage basement shall be at 1067 FF. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridge line includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. S. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this requirement. The applicant provided a cash deposit for third party certification, as required by the previous approval, for the scope approved previously. Should additional costs be required for certification of the additional scope of work approved herein, including additional grading, the applicant shall deposit additional funds with the City. T. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 458 square feet as measured along the water line. U. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. V. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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. W. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade, except that due to its location against the proposed 5' high retaining wall, the rear wall may be 5' in height. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. X. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning unit. Y. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution. The Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. Resolution No. 2014-19 10 • • Z. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, at planting time shall be a minimum of 5 gallon in size or larger. AA. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas and reconstructed staging and stock piing areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the additional grading. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. If any trees are planted, they shall be of such species as not to grow higher than the ridgeline of the residence. AB. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AC. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AD. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Resolution No. 2014-19 11 AG. During andier construction, all parking shall to place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AH. 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. Al. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AJ. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AK. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AL. The lower portion of the lot, utilized as staging and stock piling of dirt shall be reconstructed per soils and geology report and the slope shall not be greater than 1.5:1 and shall be certified by a third party civil engineer. AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. AN. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed. AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AP. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. Resolution No. 2014-19 12 AT. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. AD CHEL�F, CHAIRM ATTEST: chke664 th/Do HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2014-19 13 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 16, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick, Mirsch, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. �9l{X�i i/�llCe CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2014-19 14 ® • Cry ("Rolling JJf� i INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 6A Mtg. Date: 12/16/14 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 1. After several public hearings and two field trips, the Planning Commission at the October 21, 2014 meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval of this project for consideration at the November 18, 2104 Planning Commission meeting. At the November 18, 2014 meeting the Planning Commission could not make findings to allow the stairs from the light well to the lower level of the lot, and directed staff to bring an amended Resolution. 2. The applicant withdrew the request for the stairs to the lower level, and the enclosed resolution reflects that change, approving the remaining items. 3. The applicant is seeking the following approvals, which constitute modifications to the previously approved project: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence, to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet not to exceed 3' high of wall along the driveway, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access, 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house loggia. b. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, including reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room, depression of 252 square ZC No. 862- Modifications Printed on Recycled Paper • • feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement d. Extend the previously approved 3' high wall in the side yard setback 4. The Commission found that this is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. In addition, the property has steep slopes and any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes Also, this project has been ongoing for several years, with various changes having been approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. In some instances, changes have been necessary due to field conditions discovered after construction began. The current proposal is before the Commission because the prior approval requires submission of any further modification to construction or grading to the Commission, and also because the applicant's engineer is proposing various changes to the approved plans that would otherwise require site plan review or a variance. While some aspects of the current proposal have already been completed (i.e., the additional 3 feet of grading for the wine cellar), others have not. Finally, during the Commission's consideration of the current proposal, the applicant has generally cooperated with the Commissions requests by, for instance, restaking the property for a second field trip and withdrawing the previously proposed stair from the basement to the lower level of the lot in order to minimize the visual impact and relocated the service yard. 5. The enclosed Resolution contains a condition prohibiting further modifications, changes, or variations to the project without Planning Commission review. 6. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached Resolution No. 2014-19 for adoption. ZC No. 862- Modifications RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19 411 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of outside stairs to the basement from the house level, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed 2:1 grade, (see detailed list in Section 4 of this Resolution). Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 21/2 feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. During construction, administrative approval was granted for a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the south western side of the residence and reduction of the size of the swimming pool by the same amount, and change in the shape but not the square footage of the garage. Resolution No. 2014-19 1 • Section 4. The 27 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Section 5. Currently the applicant is seeking the following modifications, which together with the condition imposed on the previous approvals require Planning Commission consideration of a Site Plan Review and Variances. A. Site Plan Review: Lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet, additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, lowering of the driveway by 2 feet, additional 35 lineal feet of retaining wall along the driveway ranging from a six inch curb to 3' high wall, 132 square feet additional covered porches, 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement under the porch in the rear of the residence, reduce the size of the building pad area, add a new stairway from the motor court to the proposed electrical room and basement, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances: Further exceed the disturbed area of the lot to up to-80.4%; which includes the future access to the stable and the modified slopes below and above the residence, higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is to be restored to 1.5:1 grade, basement electrical room outside the footprint of the first story, and an extension of a previously approved retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the side yard setback. Section 6. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its regular meetings on August 19, September 16, October 21, and November 18, 2014 and in the field on September 16 and October 21, 2014. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and was in attendance together with his representatives. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive and 8 Outrider Road, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 2014-19 2 `J • Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development •n to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the Planning Commission to require a site plan review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, lowering the garage finished floor, additional covered porches, lowering of the driveway, additional retaining wall along the driveway, electrical room addition outside of the footprint of the basement, reduction of the size of the building pad area, new stairway to the proposed electrical room and to the basement, lowering of a portion of the basement for a wine cellar, relocation of the set aside area for future stable and corral and reduction of the swimming pool the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements except that a variance is requested for a 3'high retaining wall in the side setback. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to roadway easements. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,485 square feet which equals 29.0% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways, which will aid in drainage of the lot and storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad or within the residence, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that they will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. C. Following the approval of a larger house and basement, soils and geology study revealed that the method of construction and previous approvals have an impact on the disturbed area and necessitate grading of the back slopes to steeper than permitted slopes. The soils report indicates that due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls of the basement above the slope, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated due to location of bedrock, and the entire slope must be reconstructed Resolution No. 2014-19 3 • from the top of slope in o•r to ensure overall slope stability. Therefore, the rear slope needs to be reconstructed, compacted and keyway constructed for stability of the slope, which is considered additional grading and additional disturbance of the lot. D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. In fact, the additional grading will assure that the slopes are reconstructed in a proper manner to assure stability of the lot. E. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for 80.4% disturbance of the net lot area, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the topographic nature of the subject property is such that the reconstructed slopes require a keyway that complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. Per the Zoning Ordinance, such reconstruction of slopes is considered disturbance and when added to the previously approved variance for disturbance of 49.8%, the total disturbance would be 80.4%. Additionally, due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not included in the net lot area calculations, therefore considerably diminishing the size of the lot, against which the disturbance is calculated. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.070. Resolution No. 2014-19 4 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. According to the soils and geology report, the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls for the basement to the bedrock, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability. This action constitutes grading and affects the disturbed area of the lot. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case. Section 10. 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 Municipal Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 15.04.130 MAXIMUM SLOPE, of the Municipal Code, is required because it states that cuts and/ or fills shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless the Planning Commission grants a Variance. The applicant is proposing slopes of 1.5:1 steepness. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the maximum slope is necessary because of existing conditions on the lot that requires the area to be reconstructed and keyway constructed to Resolution No. 2014-19 5 • assure stability of the slop. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 15.04.130. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusual situation of the property and the terraced configuration of the lot, where the residential building pad was extended during construction of the basement to reach bedrock. There is not enough vertical distance from the limits of the building pad to the roadway easement on Outrider Road to create gentler slope and incorporate a keyway to assure stability. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. The resulting slopes are necessary as there isn't enough vertical distance between the road and the building pad area to create gentler and less vertical slopes. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facility at issue in this case. Section 11. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it states that maximum height walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height and walls 3-feet high or higher, except under certain circumstances, may not be located in setbacks. In addition, Section 17.12.020 states that basements are defined as a floor level below the first story of the primary residence, which includes garage. The applicant requests Variances for a basement electrical room outside the first story of the residence, and a retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the south side yard setback. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: Resolution No. 2014-19 6 ' A. There are exceptional and extraordinarycircumstanes and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is narrow and terraced with a relatively small building pad, where the terrain slopes quite drastically to a lower portion of the lot. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the residence at the 20' side yard setback line, in order to meet the City's requirement that a level path be provided around a residence, the applicant requests to level out an area in the side setback to gain access around the first level of the residence. To accomplish this path a not to exceed 3' high retaining wall is necessary, which is to be located up to 9 feet in the side yard setback. A portion of this wall existed prior to construction of the new residence and was approved to remain when the original application for this project was being considered. Due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot and the location of the residence, it is difficult to find an area for electrical facilities. This house warrants a large electrical facility and the electrical company prefers that it be readily accessible for servicing. Short of placing the electrical room inside the residence, which would not be accessible to utility company employees, there is no other place to locate such a facility. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The proposed construction is intended to meet City requirement to provide a path along the entire perimeter of the residence and provide a permanent solution for access to the electrical utility boxes. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The wall in the side setback will be screened by vegetation and provides access around the residence. The proposed construction will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots constrain certain development, where the letter of the law cannot be met. The requested construction, subject to this Variance is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution No. 2014-19 7 5) F. 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. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 862, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated December 8, 2014. E. This project including all hardscape and driveways shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading and construction permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan check review and on all subsequent plans, including job site plans. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project, as approved herein. Additional evaluation of the project by the Building Department staff and additional permit fee may be required and shall be paid by the applicant. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 20.0% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes a 450 sq.ft. future stable. Resolution No. 2014-19 8 • • H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,220 square feet or 28.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The size of the electrical room located outside the footprint of the residence, below the loggia, shall not be greater than 48 square feet. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. There shall be no access from the interior of the electrical room to the basement area, except to the light well. J. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, as well as the driveways shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturer specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Code. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be approved by the RHCA and recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 31,970 square feet or 80.4% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable, corral pad and access. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,386 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 55.6%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading for the entire project shall not exceed 7,344 cubic yards of dirt total, to include 5,441 cubic yards of cut, and 1,903 cubic yards of fill. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed and shall not exceed 3,418 cubic yards. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 185 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer, selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. P. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall along the residential building pad located west and southwest of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade, except that the wall surrounding the trash enclosure may be 6 feet in height. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). Additional wall not to exceed 35 feet in length and between 3' high and a curb is Resolution No. 2014-19 9 hereby approved along the driveway. The driveway may be re -graded and lowered as shown on the grading plan dated December 8, 2014. R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall also be at 1077. The residence basement shall be at 1063 FF, except that the wine cellar may be 3' lower. The garage basement shall be at 1067 FF. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridge line includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. S. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this requirement. The applicant provided a cash deposit for third party certification, as required by the previous approval, for the scope approved previously. Should additional costs be required for certification of the additional scope of work approved herein, including additional grading, the applicant shall deposit additional funds with the City. T. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 458 square feet as measured along the water line. U. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. V. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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. W. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade, except that due to its location against the proposed 5' high retaining wall, the rear wall may be 5' in height. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. X. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning unit. Y. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by. this resolution. The Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. Resolution No. 2014-19 10 0,2, • • Z. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, at planting time shall be a minimum of 5 gallon in size or larger. AA. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas and reconstructed staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the additional grading. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. If any trees are planted, they shall be of such species as not to grow higher than the ridgeline of the residence. AB. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AC. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AD. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Resolution No. 2014-19 11 AG. During and aer construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AH. 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. AI. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AJ. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AK. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AL. The lower portion of the lot, utilized as staging and stock piling of dirt shall be reconstructed per soils and geology report and the slope shall not be greater than 1.5:1 and shall be certified by a third party civil engineer. AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. AN. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed. AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AP. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. Resolution No. 2014-19 12 • AT. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, Cl1'Y CLERK Resolution No. 2014-19 13 I • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND EXCEEDANCE OF THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 16, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2014-19 14 13 • City el ie0ii1, Jd// • • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Agenda Item: 6B Mtg. Date:11/18/14 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 1. The applicant Mr. Tonsich is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence, to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet of walls, 3' high wall along the driveway, relocate the set aside for future stable, corral and access. b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depression of 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lowering the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, and reduction in the size of the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which indudes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases 'u 0 Printed on Recycled Paper • • d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement e. Additional, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 2. After several public hearings and two field trips, the Planning Commission at the October 21, 2014 meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for the project. Commissioner Gray was absent, however he visited the site with staff on November 6. 3. The Commission found that this is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. In addition, the property has steep slopes and any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals contributed to the increased disturbed area and need for steeper than permitted slopes Also, this project has been ongoing for several years, with various changes having been approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. In some instances, changes have been necessary due to field conditions discovered after construction began. The current proposal is before the Commission because the prior approval requires submission of any further modification to construction or grading to the Commission, and also because the applicant's engineer is proposing various changes to the approved plans that would otherwise require site plan review or a variance. While some aspects of the current proposal have already been completed (i.e., the additional 3 feet of grading for the wine cellar), others have not. Finally, during the Commission's consideration of the current proposal, the applicant has generally cooperated with the Commissions requests by, for instance, restaking the property for a second field trip and modifying the orientation and materials of the proposed stair to the basement to minimize the visual impact. If approved, the attached 4. The enclosed Resolution contains a condition prohibiting further modifications, changes, or variations to the project. 5. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached Resolution 2014-17 for adoption. 02- • • RESOLUTION NO. 2014-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify the previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. The proposed modification in Zoning Case No. 862 entails requests for additional grading, additional porches, lowering of the driveway and the basement area of the garage, depression of the basement floor for a wine cellar, reduction of the size of the swimming pool, construction of two sets of stairs for basement egress and ingress, electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocation of the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot, additional walls and re -construction of slopes which would exceed 2:1 grade, (see detailed list in Section 4 of this Resolution). Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 2 l feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive. Section 3. During construction, administrative approval was granted for a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, a 112.5 square foot covered porch at Resolution No. 2014-17 • the south western side of the residence and reduction of the size of the swimmingpool bythe same amount, and change in the shape but not the square footage of the garage. Section 4. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Section 5. Currently the applicant is seeking the following modifications, which together with the condition imposed on the previous approvals require Planning Commission consideration of a Site Plan Review and Variances. A. Site Plan Review: Lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, lowering of the driveway by 2 feet, additional 35 lineal feet of retaining wall along the driveway ranging from a six inch curb to 3' high wall, 132 square feet additional covered porches, 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement under the porch in the rear of the residence, reduce the size of the building pad area, add a new stairway to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, relocate the set aside area for future stable, corral and access and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances: Further exceed the disturbed area of the lot up to-80.4%; which includes the future access to the stable and the modified slopes below and above the residence, higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is to be restored to 1.5:1 grade, higher than permitted wall along the staircase to the lower level of the lot, basement electrical room outside the footprint of the first story, and an extension of a previously approved retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the side yard setback. Section 6. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at its regular meetings on August 19, September 16 and October 21, 2014 and in the field on September 16 and October 21, 2014. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and was in attendance together with his representatives. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive and 8 Outrider Road, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road. Resolution No. 2014-17 2� Section 7. The Onning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the Planning Commission to require a site plan review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, lowering the garage finished floor, additional covered porches, lowering of the driveway, additional retaining wall along the driveway, electrical room addition outside of the footprint of the basement, reduction of the size of the building pad area, new stairway to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, lowering of a portion of the basement for a wine cellar, relocation of the set aside area for future stable and corral and reduction of the swimming pool the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements and no variances are required for setbacks. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to roadway easements. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,485 square feet which equals 29.0% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways, which will aid in drainage of the lot and storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad or within the residence, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that they will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a modification only. Resolution No. 2014-17 3 C. Followingth• approval of a larger house and basement, soils and geologystudy PP g revealed that the method of construction and previous approvals have an impact on the disturbed area and necessitate grading of the back slopes to steeper than permitted slopes. The soils report indicates that due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls of the basement above the slope, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated due to location of bedrock, and the entire slope must be reconstructed from the top of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability. Therefore, the rear slope needs to be reconstructed, compacted and keyway constructed for stability of the slope, which is considered additional grading and additional disturbance of the lot. D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. In fact, the additional grading will assure that the slopes are reconstructed in a proper manner to assure stability of the lot. E. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for 80.4% disturbance of the net lot area, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the topographic nature of the subject property is such that the reconstructed slopes require a keyway that complies with other applicable development standards of the Building Code. Per the Zoning Ordinance, such reconstruction of slopes is considered disturbance and when added to the previously approved variance for disturbance Resolution No. 2014-17 4 411) of 49.8%, the total disturbance would be 80.4%. Additionally, due to the configuration of the Y � property, which fronts on two streets, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not included in the net lot area calculations, therefore considerably diminishing the size of the lot, against which the disturbance is calculated. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.070. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because the method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. According to the soils and geology report, the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls for the basement to the bedrock, the slope was more disturbed than previously anticipated and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability. This action constitutes grading and affects the disturbed area of the lot. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case. Section 10. 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 Municipal Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 15.04.130 MAXIMUM SLOPE, of the Municipal Code, is required because it states that cuts and/or fills shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to one vertical, unless the Resolution No. 2014-17 5 �1 Planning411 Commissiongrants a Variance. The applicant is proposing sloes of 1.5:1 steepness. PP P P g P P With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the maximum slope is necessary because of existing conditions on the lot that requires the area to be reconstructed and keyway constructed to assure stability of the slope. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 15.04.130. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusual situation of the property and the terraced configuration of the lot, where the residential building pad was extended during construction of the basement to reach bedrock. There is not enough vertical distance from the limits of the building pad to the roadway easement on Outrider Road to create gentler slope and incorporate a keyway to assure stability. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern. The proposed development will improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code will be observed because the remediation and reconstruction of slopes improves the safety of the land. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in order to reconstruct the slopes, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant as any owner would be permitted to reconstruct slopes to assure stability. The resulting slopes are necessary as there isn't enough vertical distance between the road and the building pad area to create gentler and less vertical slopes. F. 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 because there is no hazardous waste facility at issue in this case. Section 11. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it states that maximum height walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height and walls 3-feet high or higher, except under certain circumstances, may Resolution No. 2014-17 6 (0. not be located in setbacksn addition, Section 17.12.020 statesthat basements are defined as a floor level below the first story of the primary residence, which includes garage. The applicant requests Variances for higher than permitted walls along the staircase to the lower level of the lot, a basement electrical room outside the first story of the residence, and a retaining wall not to exceed 3' high in the south side yard setback. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that it is narrow and terraced with a relatively small building pad, where the terrain slopes quite drastically to a lower portion of the lot that if not for the on grade stairs from the basement well would not be accessible. Due to the grade and location of the basement elevation in relationship to the start of the slope behind, the staircase wall for a short distance must exceed 5 feet in height. The location of the septic tank necessitates that an access thereto be provided. In addition, due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the residence, at the 20' side yard setback line, in order to meet the City's requirement that a level path be provided around a residence, the applicant requests to level out an area in the side setback to gain access around the first level of the residence. To accomplish this path a not to exceed 3' high retaining wall is necessary, which is to be located up to 9 feet in the side yard setback. A portion of this wall existed prior to construction of the new residence and was approved to remain when the original application for this project was being considered. Due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot and the location of the residence, it is difficult to find an area for electrical facilities. This house warrants a large electrical facility and the electrical company prefers that it be readily accessible for servicing. Short of placing the electrical room inside the residence, which would not be accessible to utility company employees, there is no other place to locate such a facility. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The proposed construction is intended to meet City requirement to provide a path along the entire perimeter of the residence and provide a permanent solution for access to the septic tank and utilities facilities. 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. Wooden walls previously existed on the lot in vicinity of the proposed encroachment and the wall will be screened by vegetation. One neighbor came forth in opposition to the project, specifically with respect to the access from the basement to the lower level. The applicant revised the configuration of the exit well, so that the exit would not be visible from the street or properties below. The proposed construction will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of Resolution No. 2014-17 7 • the variance will not im ede an oals of the Zonin Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, P Yg g the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots constrain certain development, where the letter of the law cannot be met. The requested construction, subject to this Variance is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance. F. 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. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 862, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated October 15, 2014. E. This project including all hardscape and driveways shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading and construction permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification Resolution No. 2014-17 8 that the final plans are inOmpliance with the plans approvevy the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan check review and on all subsequent plans, including job site plans. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project, as approved herein. Additional evaluation of the project by the Building Department staff and additional permit fee may be required and shall be paid by the applicant. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 19.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes a 450 sq.ft. future stable. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,485 square feet or 29.0 % in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The size of the electrical room located outside the footprint of the residence, below the loggia, shall not be greater than 48 square feet. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. There shall be no access from the interior of the electrical room to the basement area. J. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, as well as the driveways shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturer specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Code. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be approved by the RHCA and recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 31,970 square feet or 80.4% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable, corral pad and access. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,386 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 55.6%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading for the entire project shall not exceed 7,344 cubic yards of dirt total, to include 5,441 cubic yards of cut, and 1,903 cubic yards of fill. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed and shall not exceed 3,418 cubic yards. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 185 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer, selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. Resolution No. 2014-17 9 • P. The proposed retainingwall, which would replace an existingretainingwall P p P along the residential building pad located west and southwest of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade, except that the wall surrounding the trash enclosure may be 6 feet in height. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). Additional wall not to exceed 35 feet in length and between 3' high and a curb is hereby approved along the driveway. The driveway may be re -graded and lowered as shown on the site plan dated October 15, 2014. R. The stairs leading from the light well to the lower portion of the lot shall be constructed on grade following the grade of the slope and shall not be of concrete material, but shall utilize railroad ties, decomposed granite or other similar "soft" material. The stair walls shall be screened with landscaping. S. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall also be at 1077 elevation. Both, the basement and the garage basement shall be at 1063 elevation, except that the wine cellar may be 3' lower. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. T. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this requirement. The applicant provided a cash deposit for third party certification, as required by the previous approval, for the scope approved previously. Should additional costs be required for certification of the additional scope of work approved herein, the applicant shall deposit additional funds with the City. U. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 458 square feet as measured along the water line. V. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. W. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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. Resolution No. 2014-17 10 Oz X. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade, except that due to its location against the proposed 5' high retaining wall, the rear wall may be 5' in height. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Y. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning unit. Z. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution. The Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. AA. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, shall be a minimum of 5 gallon in size or larger. AB. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas and reconstructed staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the additional grading. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. If any trees are planted, they shall be of such species as not to grow higher than the ridgeline of the residence. AC. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AD. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction Resolution No. 2014-17 activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles g g County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AE. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AG. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. AH. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AI. 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. AJ. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AK. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AL. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AM. The lower portion of the lot, utilized as staging and stock piling of dirt shall be reconstructed per soils and geology report and the slope shall not be greater than 1.5:1 and shall be certified by a third party civil engineer. AN. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. Resolution No. 2014-17 12 AO. Prior to grai"!'!Ing a final inspection and/or certisate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed. AP. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AQ. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AR. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AS. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AT. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. AU. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2014-17 13 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A PROJECT CONSISTING OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, RECONFIGURED DRIVEWAYS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH, VARIOUS WALLS AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, WHERE A CONDITION HAS BEEN IMPOSED THAT ANY MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH). THE REQUEST ENTAILS VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT REQUIREING A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS, IN ZONING CASE NO. 862. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 18, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2014-17 c 1 r ail Ra (lief qe 0 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 4A Mtg. Date: 10/21/14FT TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. o • lot • April 2012 Foundation only permit issued; (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 -1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence was not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement(incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading is brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2nd Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Febr. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/ dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). O • • Dec. 2013 over -the counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. • With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. CURRENT PROPOSAL 1. The residence is currently under construction. During construction the applicant made some changes to the design of the house that require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant would like to make other changes to the residence and to the grading. 2. The Planning Commission held a field trip and a public hearing on this application on September 16, 2014 and requested additional information as well as more accurate staking of certain components of the project. 3. Detailed request is listed as item #1 through #22 on the Site Plan, page C1. Staff approved items #1 and #13. The garage shape was changed but not the size of the garage and a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house was approved. To keep the originally approved structural coverage, the size of the pool was reduced by the same amount. In summary, the applicant is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence, to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet, 3' high wall along the driveway, relocate the set aside for future stable, corral and access. b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. • t B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement e. Additional, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 3. Below is description of the various requests, as they appear on the property starting at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive. A. #4&#5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. • • The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance — (250 sq.ft. area). Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C. #11,#19&#20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6,#88r#9 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia, which extends along the entire length of the rear of the house and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. Upon completion, the walls were to be maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. Basement floor plans previously approved show an electrical room just behind the garage basement. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a basement may not protrude beyond the footprint of the residence, including attached garage. Therefore a variance is requested. The applicant also proposes a modification to the basement light well. He has revised the request since last month's proposal and requests an on grade 6' wide landing and staircase from the first (northern most) light well across the slope to the lower level. The basement doors would not be visible from below, as the landing would come out on the side of the light well and not in front of it. A 9' retaining wall, which requires a variance, would have to be constructed along a short portion of the proposed landing. This construction would add 265 square feet of paved walks to the project. All three light wells were approved to be • depressed and not have exits or any openings, except from above. To exit the light wells a ladder would be installed. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the loggia above the basement and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain more flat area and be able to access the loggia from the side yard. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. Some of the dirt was already exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre - construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage (if approved). With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and was not proposed to be re -graded and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. The current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionall �1,895 square foot area is proposed to be • • graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the most appropriate location for the septic system is in the area of the previous set aside area. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. Recently a separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. • • 5. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 7. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/ decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 8. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 9. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 10. DRAINAGE: The upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to be sheet flow with no collection devices. As the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes the amount impervious (other than the stairs) it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to • the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 13. When reviewing a site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 14. The applicant states that the project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access. 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and • aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; • • 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CHANGES TO APPROVED PLAN PER RESOLUTION 11-35 1. ADJUST DIMENSIONS OF GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR OWNERS CAR: TO BE PARKED. NO CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 698.0 S.F. 2. LOWER GARAGE BY AN ADDITIONAL 2' TO HAVE IT AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 52 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. 3. MODIFICATION TO GRADING ON SLOPE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND ADJACENT TO GARAGE. CHANGES OCCUR DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE GARAGE AND THE HOLDING OF A 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ALONG WITH DISTURBED AREA CALCULATIONS. ADDITIONAL 110 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. ADDITIONAL 1,145 S.F. DISTURBED AREA. 4. REVISED DRIVEWAY SURFACE TO BE PAVERS. REDUCES PRIMARY DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 563 S.F. TO 0 S.F. AND OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE DECREASES BY 354 S.F. FOR A TOTAL OF 1,942 S.F. 5. ADJUST GRADES ON MAIN DRIVEWAY TO 40 EASTFIELD DUE TO LOWERING OF GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 20% SLOPE. BUILDING PAD AREA IS DECREASED BY 965 S.F. ADDITION OF NEW 48 S.F. ELECTRICAL ROOM UNDER LOGGIA TO ALLOW FOR EDISON TO HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS TO METER AND PANEL. EXISTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WAY FROM OUTRIDER WILL BE RETURNED TO PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITION AT TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION 8. ADDITION OF NEW 3' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY DOWN TO BASEMENT TO PROVIDE EDISON ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL METER AND PANEL. ADDITIONAL 80 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 9. ADDITION OF NEW 6' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM THE MIDDLE LIGHT WELL DOWN TO THE SECONDARY PAD. STAIRWAY IS DEPRESSED AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL. ADDITIONAL 265 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 10. REDUCTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SWIMMING POOL SIZE TO 458 S.F. TO KEEP STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BELOW THE ZONING CODE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 20.0%. 11. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO ENTRYWAY. WAS PREVIOUSLY OMITTED ADDITIONAL AREA OF 75 S.F. 12. REVISION TO POOL DECKING AMOUNT DUE TO CHANGES IN POOL SIZE. ADDITIONAL 223 S.F. OF POOL DECKING. © 13. ADDITION OF 112.5 S.F. OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO MASTER BATH. AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 14. REVISION TO JOIN LOCATION FOR RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE OF HOUSE TO LOGGIA. ALLOWS ACCESS TO LOGGIA FROM SIDE YARD. 15. REVISION TO GRADING OF REAR SLOPE. PROPOSING 1.5:1 SLOPE TO REPLACE SLOPE TO APPROXIMATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS. GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND DISTURBED AREA CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVISED. SOILS ENGINEER TO BE - REQUIRING THIS:SLOPETO BE BUILT. SEE LETTER FROM TODD HOUSEAL DATED JULY 11, 2014. 215 C.Y. CUT & 215 C.Y. FILL. 550 C.Y. OVER -EX AND 650 C.Y. RE -COMPACTION. ADDITIONAL 6,965 S.F. OF DISTURBED AREA. SEE DETAIL 4, THIS SHEET FOR KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL. 16. REVISION TO OVERALL DISTURBED AREA TO NOW INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY OMITTED LOWER PAD DISTURBANCE & FUTURE STABLE ACCESS. REVISED DISTURBED AREA IS 31,620 S.F. (79.72 %) 17. REVISED LOCATION TO FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL. • © 18. DEPRESS EXISTING WINE ROOM LOCATION IN BASEMENT BY ADDITIONAL 3 FEET. REVISED VOLUME CALCULATIONS INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 28 C.Y. OF CUT. 19. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH BETWEEN ENTRYWAY AND GARAGE. PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 57 S.F. © 20. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTRYWAY. 21. REVISION TO CONCRETE WALK BETWEEN RETAINING WALL AND GARAGE. ADDITIONAL 43 S.F. OF PAVED WALK. 22. FUTURE STABLE ACCESS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY. MINIMUM OF 6' WIDE AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 25%. ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 330 S.F. TO THE DISTURBED AREA. . • 23. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. • Revisions • • • RECEIVED AUG 18 2014 From: John Resich <jresich@aol.com> City of Rolling Hills Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM By To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodemPcitvofrh.net> Subject: Re: Tonisch & 8/19 Planning Commission meeting agenda TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I do hereby object to the granting of this variance as it was done because the applicant determined that the conditions were created after the construction and due to circumstances beyond his control, but were anticipated prior to construction and he did not want to request the variance prior to construction as he knew that the planning commission would not grant the easement. This was done with intent to get a sports court after the fact. The construction could have been accomplished as originally drawn but the cut was done so that the Planning Commission would grant an easement. I question his intent as he has built the deck so that the wall can be removed and then the house would have a two story condition across the whole back. If you reviewed the construction there is a large beam that was engineered to support the deck with the removal of the block wall which is not structural in nature to my belief. I would be highly suspect. I will be appearing to object at the time of the hearing. JOHN RESICH 8 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLIJNG HILLS CALIFORNIA • • 6/4 al Ra Ilia, qc& • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 7A Mtg. Date: 10/21/14 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. e • • • April 2012 Foundation only permit issued; (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 -1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence was not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement(incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading is brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2nd Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Febr. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/ dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • • • Dec. 2013 over -the counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. • With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. CURRENT PROPOSAL 1. The residence is currently under construction. During construction the applicant made some changes to the design of the house that require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant would like to make other changes to the residence and to the grading. 2. The Planning Commission held a field trip and a public hearing on this application on September 16, 2014 and requested additional information as well as more accurate staking of certain components of the project and held another field trip earlier today. 3. Detailed request is listed as item #1 through #22 on the Site Plan, page C1. Staff approved items #1 and # 13. The garage shape was changed but not the size of the garage and a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house was approved. To keep the originally approved structural coverage, the size of the pool was reduced by the same amount. In summary, the applicant is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of a total 2,098 cubic yards of cut and fill to restore the slope below the residence, to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage and to relocate the service yard against the slope, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet, 3' high wall along the driveway, relocate the set aside for future stable, corral and access. b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate • • stairs between the house and garage, and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-80.4%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement e. Additional, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 3. Below is description of the various requests, as they appear on the property starting at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive. A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. The applicant also proposes to tuck the service yard into the hill in this area, necessitating additional grading- (60 c.y. cut to be used in the slope reconstruction below the residence), and disturbance — (250 sq.ft. area). Service yard must be enclosed by a 6' high wall. Per the request of the neighbors, the Commission recommended that the applicant relocate the service yard. C. #11,#19&#20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10&#12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 & #9 The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia, which extends along the entire length of the rear of the house and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room and the basement, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. Upon completion, the walls were to be maximum 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing access from the electrical room into the basement area. However, the basement would be accessible from the proposed stairs and landing. Basement floor plans previously approved show an electrical room just behind the garage basement. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a basement may not protrude beyond the footprint of the residence, including attached garage. Therefore a variance is requested. The applicant also proposes a modification to the basement light well. He has revised the request since last month's proposal and requests an on grade 6' wide landing and staircase from the first (northern most) light well across the slope to the lower level. The basement doors would not be visible from below, as the landing would come out on the side of the light well and not in front of it. A 9' retaining wall, which requires a variance, would have to be constructed along a short portion of the proposed landing. This construction would add 265 square feet of paved walks to the project. three light wells were approved to be depressed and not have exits or any openings, except from above. To exit the light wells a ladder would be installed. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the loggia above the basement and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain more flat area and be able to access the loggia from the side yard. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. Some of the dirt was already exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,098 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre - construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage (if approved): With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 80.4% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and was not proposed to be re -graded and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. The current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionall , 1,895 square foot area is proposed to be • • graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation, to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5' and for the relocated service yard. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade. I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 80.4% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the most appropriate location for the septic system is in the area of the previous set aside area. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. Recently a separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 0 • • 5. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 7. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 8. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,870 square feet or 80.4%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 9. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,098 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 10. DRAINAGE: The upper slope will be collected in the swale, which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to be sheet flow with no collection devices. As the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes the amount impervious (other than the stairs) it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. Th- engineer for the project states that "due to • • the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 13. When reviewing a site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 14. The applicant states that the project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access. 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; • • 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CHANGES TO APPROVED PLAN PER RESOLUTION 11-35 1. ADJUST DIMENSIONS OF GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR OWNERS CAR. TO BE PARKED. NO CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 698.0 S.F. © 2. LOWER GARAGE BY AN ADDITIONAL 2' TO HAVE IT AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 52 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. 3. MODIFICATION TO GRADING ON SLOPE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND ADJACENT TO GARAGE. CHANGES OCCUR DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE GARAGE AND THE HOLDING OF A 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ALONG WITH DISTURBED AREA CALCULATIONS. ADDITIONAL 110 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. ADDITIONAL 1,145 S.F. DISTURBED AREA. 4. REVISED DRIVEWAY SURFACE TO BE PAVERS. REDUCES PRIMARY DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 563 S.F. TO 0 S.F. AND OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE DECREASES BY 354 S.F. FORA TOTAL OF 1,942 S.F. 5. ADJUST GRADES ON MAIN DRIVEWAY TO 40 EASTFIELD DUE TO LOWERING OF GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 20% SLOPE. BUILDING PAD AREA IS DECREASED BY 965 S.F. 6. ADDITION OF NEW 48 S.F. ELECTRICAL ROOM UNDER LOGGIA TO ALLOW FOR EDISON TO HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS TO METER AND PANEL. 7. EXISTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WAY FROM OUTRIDER WILL BE RETURNED TO PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITION AT TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION 8. ADDITION OF NEW 3' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY DOWN TO BASEMENT TO PROVIDE EDISON ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL METER AND PANEL. ADDITIONAL 80 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 9. ADDITION OF NEW 6' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM THE MIDDLE LIGHT WELL DOWN TO THE SECONDARY PAD. STAIRWAY IS DEPRESSED AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL. ADDITIONAL 265 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 10. REDUCTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SWIMMING POOL SIZE TO 456 S.F. TO KEEP STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BELOW THE ZONING CODE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 20.0%. 11. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO ENTRYWAY. WAS PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 75 S.F. 12. REVISION TO POOL DECKING AMOUNT DUE TO CHANGES IN POOL SIZE. ADDITIONAL 223 S.F. OF POOL DECKING. O 13. ADDITION OF 112.5 S.F. OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO MASTER BATH. AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 14. REVISION TO JOIN LOCATION FOR RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE OF HOUSE TO LOGGIA. ALLOWS ACCESS TO LOGGIA FROM SIDE YARD. 15. REVISION TO GRAD_ ING OF REAR SLOPE. PROPOSING 1.5:1 SLOPE TO REPLACE SLOPE TO APPROXIMATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS. GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND DISTURBED AREA CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVISED. SOILS ENGINEERTO BE REQUIRING THIS:SLOPETO BE BUILT. SEE LETTER FROM TODD HOUSEAL DATED JULY 11, 2014. 215 C.Y. CUT & 215 C.Y. FILL. 550 C.Y. OVER -EX AND 650 C.Y. RE -COMPACTION. ADDITIONAL 6,965 S.F. OF DISTURBED AREA. SEE DETAIL 4, THIS SHEET FOR KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL. 16. REVISION TO OVERALL DISTURBED AREA TO NOW INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY OMITTED LOWER PAD DISTURBANCE & FUTURE STABLE ACCESS. REVISED DISTURBED AREA IS 31,620 S.F. ( 79.72 %) • • 17. REVISED LOCATION TO FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL. O 18. DEPRESS EXISTING WINE ROOM LOCATION IN BASEMENT BY ADDITIONAL 3 FEET. REVISED VOLUME CALCULATIONS INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 28 C.Y. OF CUT. 19. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH BETWEEN ENTRYWAY AND GARAGE. PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 57 S.F. © 20. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTRYWAY. 21. REVISION TO CONCRETE WALK BETWEEN RETAINING WALL AND GARAGE. ADDITIONAL 43 S.F. OF PAVED WALK 22. FUTURE STABLE ACCESS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY. MINIMUM OF 6' WIDE AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 25%. ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 330 S.F. TO THE DISTURBED AREA. •, • 23. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. 0 Revisions By L `n V N CI O o aim c N (7).., a) . .....3 12 T CO a1 a� p .� • a1i °3 Q1Fgi.LC) Igo C aou7 0 crn(NJ L. 01 dO+ oZOQ moow�VI03 gClldria) ......0 tvt } • • RECEIVED AUG 18 2014 From: John Resich <iresich@aol.com> City of Rolling Hills Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM By To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@citvofrh.net> Subject: Re: Tonisch & 8/19 Planning Commission meeting agenda TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I do hereby object to the granting of this variance as it was done because the applicant determined that the conditions were created after the construction and due to circumstances beyond his control, but were anticipated prior to construction and he did not want to request the variance prior to construction as he knew that the planning commission would not grant the easement. This was done with intent to get a sports court after the fact. The construction could have been accomplished as originally drawn but the cut was done so that the Planning Commission would grant an easement. I question his intent as he has built the deck so that the wall can be removed and then the house would have a two story condition across the whole back. If you reviewed the construction there is a large beam that was engineered to support the deck with the removal of the block wall which is not structural in nature to my belief. I would be highly suspect. I will be appearing to object at the time of the hearing. JOHN RESICH 8 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLIJNG HILLS CALIFORNIA • • al Radief qe& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 4A Mtg. Date: 9/16/14FT TO: HONORABLE VICE -CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. C> • • • April 2012 Foundation only permit issued; (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 - 1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence was not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement(incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading is brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2' Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Febr. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). • Dec. 2013 over -the counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. • With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. CURRENT PROPOSAL 1. The residence is currently under construction. During construction the applicant made some changes to the design of the house that require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant would like to make other changes to the residence and to the grading. Staff requested that the applicant provide elevation drawings of the proposed changes. As of the writing of this report, no plans were received. Should the Commission find that elevation plans would aid the Commission in the review of the project and in decision -making, the Commission could continue the hearing to a time when such plans are provided. The proposed modifications are listed as item #1 through #22 on the Site Plan, page C1. Staff approved items #1 and #13. The garage shape was changed but not the size of the garage and a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house was approved. To keep the originally approved structural coverage, the size of the pool was reduced by the same amount. In summary, the applicant is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards of cut and fill dirt to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet, 3' high wall along the driveway, location of the future stable, corral and access. b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. co • • B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-79.7%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement e. Additional, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 3. For the field trip purposes, please refer to the list of proposed changes provided by the applicants' engineer on Sheet C1 (of the plans previously provided). The list is included with this staff report, (items #1-#22). Below is description of the various requests, as they appear on the property starting at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive. A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. • • C. #11, #19 & #20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6,#8&#9 The applicant would like to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia which extends along the entire length of the rear of the house and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. Upon completion, the walls were to be not higher than 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing an access from the electrical room into the basement. Basement floor plans previously approved show an electrical room just behind the garage basement. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a basement may not extend beyond the footprint of the residence, including attached garage, therefore a variance is requested. The applicant also proposes a modification to the basement light well. He proposes an on grade 6' wide landing and staircase from the middle basement light well over the reconstructed slope leading to the lower level of the lot, (Section E on plan C2). The middle light well, on the plan, would have a 6' wide opening to the landing. A 6' retaining wall, which requires a variance, is proposed along a short portion of the stairs (for 3'). This construction would add 265 square feet of paved walks to the project. All three light wells were approved to be depressed and not have exits or any openings, except from above. To exit the light wells a ladder would be installed. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the loggia above the basement and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the • • Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. In the original 2007 approval the City Council added the following condition: "This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the City." F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted. to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain more flat area and be able to access the loggia from the side yard. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. Some of the dirt was already exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre - construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage (if approved). With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 79.7% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and was not proposed to be re -graded and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. The current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above and requires a keyway and additional compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted • • towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,145 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation and to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5'. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the.grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 79.7% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the most appropriate location for the septic system is in the area of the previous set aside area. However, it is important to note that during a review process of the applicant's application by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in 2002, the County required soils and geology study for the property. At that time the applicant proposed an addition to the house, detached garage and a guest house. The guest house was to be located in the area of the currently proposed set aside area for stable and corral. The 2002 soils and geology study revealed that the slopes below the proposed addition and below the proposed detached garage do not meet the factor of stability as required by the Los Angeles County Building Code in order to construct the guest house. In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety required a horizontal setback of 15 feet between structures and the ascending slopes, or terraced walls to act as support for the slope and the required separation. • • To accomplish the requirements for slope stability and distance to the ascending slope, remediation of the slopes was required, which included several walls. It is therefore questionable if a stable and corral could be constructed in that area, without major remediation and tall retaining walls and if this area is feasible for such construction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. Recently a separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 5. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 7. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/ decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 8. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,961 square feet or 79.7%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 9. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,030 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 10. DRAINAGE: The upper slope will be collected in the swale which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins • then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to be sheet flow with no collection devices. As the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes the amount impervious (other than the stairs) it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 13. When reviewing a site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 14. The applicant states that the project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access. 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 16. Neighbors within 1,000 foot radius were notified of this hearing. The neighbors at 38 Eastfield reviewed the plans and would like to see the additional porches, stable and service area staked. They questioned the location of the service area. Staff determined that the original plans approved in 2007 did not show a service yard; however the modified plans in 2011 showed the service yard in the current location. • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: • • A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK D2. ECEEVED AUG 1 8 2O14 From: John Resich <iresich@aol.com> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM By To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Tonisch & 8/19 Planning Commission meeting agenda City of Rolling Hills TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I do hereby object to the granting of this variance as it was done because the applicant determined that the conditions were created after the construction and due to circumstances beyond his control, but were anticipated prior to construction and he did not want to request the variance prior to construction as he knew that the planning commission would not grant the easement. This was done with intent to get a sports court after the fact. The construction could have been accomplished as originally drawn but the cut was done so that the Planning Commission would grant an easement. I question his intent as he has built the deck so that the wall can be removed and then the house would have a two story condition across the whole back. If you reviewed the construction there is a large beam that was engineered to support the deck with the removal of the block wall which is not structural in nature to my belief. I would be highly suspect. I will be appearing to object at the time of the hearing. JOHN RESICH 8 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLIJNG HILLS CALIFORNIA • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHANGES TO APPROVED PLAN PER RESOLUTION 11-35 1. ADJUST DIMENSIONS OF GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR OWNERS CAR. TO BE PARKED. NO CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 698.0 S.F. © 2. LOWER GARAGE BY AN ADDITIONAL 2' TO HAVE IT AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 52 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. 3. MODIFICATION TO GRADING ON SLOPE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND ADJACENT TO GARAGE. CHANGES OCCUR DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE GARAGE AND THE HOLDING OF A 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ALONG WITH DISTURBED AREA CALCULATIONS. ADDITIONAL 110 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. ADDITIONAL 1,145 S.F. DISTURBED AREA. 4. REVISED DRIVEWAY SURFACE TO BE PAVERS. REDUCES PRIMARY DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 563 S.F. TO 0 S.F. AND OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE DECREASES BY 354 S.F. FOR A TOTAL OF 1,942 S.F. 5. ADJUST GRADES ON MAIN DRIVEWAY TO 40 EASTFIELD DUE TO LOWERING OF GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 20% SLOPE. BUILDING PAD AREA IS DECREASED BY 965 S.F. 0 6. ADDITION OF NEW 48 S.F. ELECTRICAL ROOM UNDER LOGGIA TO ALLOW FOR EDISON TO HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS TO METER AND PANEL. U 7. EXISTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WAY FROM OUTRIDER WILL BE RETURNED TO PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITION AT TERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION • 8. ADDITION OF NEW 3' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY DOWN TO BASEMENT TO PROVIDE EDISON ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL METER AND PANEL. ADDITIONAL 80 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 9. ADDITION OF NEW 6' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM THE MIDDLE LIGHT WELL DOWN TO THE SECONDARY PAD. STAIRWAY IS DEPRESSED AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL. ADDITIONAL 265 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 10. REDUCTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SWIMMING POOL SIZE TO 458 S.F. TO KEEP STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BELOW THE ZONING CODE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF 20.0%. 11. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO ENTRYWAY. WAS PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 75 S.F. 12. REVISION TO POOL DECKING AMOUNT DUE TO CHANGES IN POOL SIZE. ADDITIONAL 223 S.F. OF POOL DECKING. © 13. ADDITION OF 112.5 S.F. OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO MASTER BATH. AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 14. REVISION TO JOIN LOCATION FOR RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE OF HOUSE TO LOGGIA. ALLOWS ACCESS TO LOGGIA FROM SIDE YARD. 15. REVISION TO GRADING OF REAR SLOPE. PROPOSING 1.5:1 SLOPE TO REPLACE SLOPE TO APPROXIMATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS. GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND DISTURBED AREA CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVISED. SOILS ENGINEER TO BE - REQUIRING THIS:SLOPE:TO BE BUILT. SEE LETTER FROM TODD HOUSEAL DATED JULY 11, 2014. 215 C.Y. CUT & 215 C.Y. FILL. 550 C.Y. OVER -EX AND 650 C.Y. RE -COMPACTION. ADDITIONAL 6,965 S.F. OF DISTURBED AREA. SEE DETAIL 4, THIS SHEET FOR KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL. 16. REVISION TO OVERALL DISTURBED AREA TO NOW INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY OMITTED LOWER PAD DISTURBANCE & FUTURE STABLE ACCESS. REVISED DISTURBED AREA IS 31,620 S.F. (79.72 %) 17. REVISED LOCATION TO FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL. © 18. DEPRESS EXISTING WINE ROOM LOCATION IN BASEMENT BY ADDITIONAL 3 FEET. REVISED VOLUME CALCULATIONS INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 28 C.Y. OF CUT. 19. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH BETWEEN ENTRYWAY AND GARAGE. PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 57 S.F. © 20. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTRYWAY. 21. REVISION TO CONCRETE WALK BETWEEN RETAINING WALL AND GARAGE. ADDITIONAL 43 S.F. OF PAVED WALK 22. FUTURE STABLE ACCESS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY. MINIMUM OF 6' WIDE AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 25%. ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 330 S.F. TO THE DISTURBED AREA. • 23. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. Revisions By 1 -14 _ L- ‘8 N ▪ 0 co o _ • N M�® •� c 0_4 CD x a: � L O 15 Co W• .EE8Ln rn N • c t° U O O c 611 �M • sgl Rall4t9 qetia INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 7C Mtg. Date: 9/16/14 TO: HONORABLE VICE -CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: NOTICE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862-MODIFICATIONS 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock, the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. • 111 lot • April 2012 Foundation only permit issued; (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. • June 2012 - 1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence was not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement(incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading is brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2"a Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Febr. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). 0 • • • Dec. 2013 over -the counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. • With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. CURRENT PROPOSAL 1. The residence is currently under construction. During construction the applicant made some changes to the design of the house that require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant would like to make other changes to the residence and to the grading. Staff requested that the applicant provide elevation drawings of the proposed changes. As of the writing of this report, no plans were received. Should the Commission find that elevation plans would aid the Commission in the review of the project and in decision -making, the Commission could continue the hearing to a time when such plans are provided. 2. The proposed modifications are listed as item #1 through #22 on the Site Plan, page C1, previously provided to the members of the Commission. The list is included with this staff report as well. Staff approved items #1 and #13. The garage shape was changed but not the size of the garage and a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house was approved. To keep the originally approved structural coverage, the size of the pool was reduced by the same amount. In summary, the applicant is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards of cut and fill dirt to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet, 3' high wall along the driveway, location of the future stable, corral and access. b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch. c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-79.7%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement e. Additional, not to exceed 3' wall in the side yard setback 3. The Planning Commission visited the site earlier today. Please refer to the list of proposed changes provided by the applicants' engineer on Sheet C1 (of the plans previously provided). The list is included with this staff report, (items #1- #22). Below is a description of the various requests, as they appear on the property starting at the top of the lot off of Eastfield Drive. A. #4 & #5 On June 9, 2014, the City Council approved the two separate driveway approaches, both located on 38 Eastfield Drive. Proposed is revised driveway surface to be pavers over the two driveway approaches and for the remaining driveway at 40 Eastfield; thus reducing the hardscape coverage for the driveways to 0 s.f. The total lot (hardscape) coverage of the lot is decreased to 1,942 sq.ft. or 29%. The request also includes lowering the garage, which requires re -grading of the driveway and lowering it to maintain at most 20% slope. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). Additionally, lowering the driveway will result in a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. B. #2, #3, & #21 The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077-foot elevation and the applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for the garage. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. These modifications would require additional grading of 162 cubic yards (52 c.y. cut for garage and 110 c.y. cut for the area west (above) of the 5' high retaining wall). The applicant proposes to pave the • • 4' wide walkway between the wall and the garage, adding 43 square feet to the hardscape coverage. C. #11, #19 & #20 The applicant proposes two additional covered porches. A 75 square foot covered porch adjacent to the entryway and 57 square foot covered porch between the entryway and the garage. The applicant states that the porches were shown on plans but were omitted from calculations. The Planning Commission plans for the revised residence showed the general footprint of the residence, and not much of other details. The Architectural plans showed porches and the Architectural Committee approved them. D. #10 & #12 To keep the structural coverage at 20%, with the additions of the porches and the electrical room, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool from 750 square feet to 458 square feet. Due to the decrease in the size of the swimming pool, the pool decking will be enlarged by 223 square feet. The total coverage of the lot will not increase, due to the applicant using pavers for the entire driveway and parking area, and will be at 29.0%, (max. permitted 35%). E. #6, #8 & #9 The applicant would like to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia which extends along the entire length of the rear of the house and construct 3' wide stairs from the front of the residence, (near the entryway) for access to the electrical room, adding 80 square feet to the hardscape. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses or access. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. Upon completion, the walls were to be not higher than 5' above the top of grade. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing an access from the electrical room into the basement. Basement floor plans previously approved show an electrical room just behind the garage basement. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a basement may not extend beyond the footprint of the residence, including attached garage, therefore a variance is requested. The applicant also proposes a modification to the basement light well. He proposes an on grade 6' wide landing and staircase from the middle basement light well over the reconstructed slope leading to the lower level of the lot, (Section E on plan C2). The middle light well, on the plan, would have a 6' wide opening to the landing. A 6' retaining wall, which requires a variance, is proposed along a short portion of the stairs (for 3'). This construction would add 265 square feet of paved walks to the project. All three light wells were approved to be depressed and not have exits or any openings, except from above. To exit the light wells a ladder would be installed. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the loggia above the basement and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsi. - for reviews of site plans and grading and • determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. In the original 2007 approval the City Council added the following condition: "This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the City." F. #18 The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar, generating 28 c.y. of dirt. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. G. #14 There was an existing 2-3 foot wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet to be able to gain more flat area and be able to access the loggia from the side yard. The additional wall requires a variance. (Wall of up to 3 feet in height is permitted in setbacks only if it is determined that such wall is necessary for drainage or erosion control purposes or is necessary along a driveway, staircase or walkway). H. #15 & #16 As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. Some of the dirt was already exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, a portion of which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to pre - construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches from Eastfield additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage (if approved). With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 79.7% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to pre-existing grade, and was not proposed to be re -graded and therefore was not counted towards disturbance. The current condition of this area requires it to be re -graded for stability of the structures above . nd requires a keyway and additional • • compaction. Therefore, additional 6,965 square feet of area must be counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,145 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation and to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5'. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required to restore and compact the slope to 1.5:1 fill slope. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade I. #7, #17 & #22 Prior to the start of construction City and RHCA staff approved a temporary construction road off of Outrider Drive with a condition that the road be restored to pre -construction condition after completion of the project. The applicant proposes to restore the road, but designate it for a future access to stable and corral. Approval from the RHCA for this access would be required as portion of the access would be located in easements. The disturbance for the future stable, corral and access is included in the 79.7% disturbance of the lot. The applicant is also proposing to locate the set aside area for a future stable and corral in a different location than previously approved. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location would be closer to the northerly property line, and does not require a variance. According to the applicant's engineer, the most appropriate location for the septic system is in the area of the previous set aside area. However, it is important to note that during a review process of the applicant's application by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in 2002, the County required soils and geology study for the property. At that time the applicant proposed an addition to the house, detached garage and a guest house. The guest house was to be located in the area of the currently proposed set aside area for stable and corral. The 2002 soils and geology study revealed that the slopes below the proposed addition and below the proposed detached garage do not meet the factor of stability as required by the Los Angeles County Building Code in order to construct the guest house. In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety required a horizontal setback of 15 feet between structures and the ascending slopes, or terraced walls to act as support for the slope and the required separation. • • To accomplish the requirements for slope stability and distance to the ascending slope, remediation of the slopes was required, which included several walls. It is therefore questionable if a stable and corral could be constructed in that area, without major remediation and tall retaining walls and if this area is feasible for such construction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. Recently a separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 5. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 7. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 8. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,961 square feet or 79.7%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 9. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,030 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 10. DRAINAGE: The upper slope will be collected in the swale which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins f • • then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to be sheet flow with no collection devices. As the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes the amount impervious (other than the stairs) it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep slopes and abutting two wide roadway easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 13. When reviewing a site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 14. The applicant states that the project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access. 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 16. The neighbors at 38 Eastfield reviewed the plans and questioned the location of the service area. Staff determined that the original plans approved in 2007 did not show a service yard; however the modified plans in 2011 showed the service yard in the current location. • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: -10- • • A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • "'ECEIVED AUG 1 8 2014 From: John Resich <iresich@aol.com> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2014 at 12:05 PM By To: Ewa Nikodem <enikodem@cityofrh.net> Subject: Re: Tonisch & 8/19 Planning Commission meeting agenda City of Rolling Hills TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: I do hereby object to the granting of this variance as it was done because the applicant determined that the conditions were created after the construction and due to circumstances beyond his control, but were anticipated prior to construction and he did not want to request the variance prior to construction as he knew that the planning commission would not grant the easement. This was done with intent to get a sports court after the fact. The construction could have been accomplished as originally drawn but the cut was done so that the Planning Commission would grant an easement. I question his intent as he has built the deck so that the wall can be removed and then the house would have a two story condition across the whole back. If you reviewed the construction there is a large beam that was engineered to support the deck with the removal of the block wall which is not structural in nature to my belief. I would be highly suspect. I will be appearing to object at the time of the hearing. JOHN RESICH 8 OUTRIDER ROAD, ROLLIJNG HILLS CALIFORNIA \�J • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CHANGES TO APPROVED PLAN PER RESOLUTION 11-35 1. ADJUST DIMENSIONS OF GARAGE TO ALLOW FOR OWNERS CAR TO BE PARKED. NO CHANGE TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 698.0 S.F. © 2. LOWER GARAGE BY AN ADDITIONAL 2' TO HAVE IT AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE MAIN RESIDENCE. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 52 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. 3. MODIFICATION TO GRADING ON SLOPE BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND ADJACENT TO GARAGE. CHANGES OCCUR DUE TO THE LOWERING OF THE GARAGE AND THE HOLDING OF A 5' MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL. REVISED GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ALONG WITH DISTURBED AREA CALCULATIONS. ADDITIONAL 110 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT. ADDITIONAL 1,145 S.F. DISTURBED AREA. 4. REVISED DRIVEWAY SURFACE TO BE PAVERS. REDUCES PRIMARY DRIVEWAY COVERAGE BY 563 S.F. TO 0 S.F. AND OTHER PAVED DRIVEWAY COVERAGE DECREASES BY 354 S.F. FOR A TOTAL OF 1,942 S.F. 5. ADJUST GRADES ON MAIN DRIVEWAY TO 40 EASTFIELD DUE TO LOWERING OF GARAGE AND TO MAINTAIN 20% SLOPE. BUILDING PAD AREA IS DECREASED BY 965 S.F. 0 6. ADDITION OF NEW 48 S.F. ELECTRICAL ROOM UNDER LOGGIA TO ALLOW FOR EDISON TO HAVE EXTERIOR ACCESS TO METER AND PANEL. 7. EXISTING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WAY FROM OUTRIDER WILL BE RETURNED TO PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITION AT TERMINATION" '' 1 ` OF CONSTRUCTION 8. ADDITION OF NEW 3' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM FRONT ENTRYWAY DOWN TO BASEMENT TO PROVIDE EDISON ACCESS TO ELECTRICAL METER AND PANEL. ADDITIONAL 80 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. 9. ADDITION OF NEW 6' WIDE STAIRCASE FROM THE MIDDLE LIGHT WELL DOWN TO THE SECONDARY PAD. STAIRWAY IS DEPRESSED AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL. ADDITIONAL 265 S.F. OF PAVED WALKS. • 10. REDUCTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SWIMMING POOL SIZE TO 458 S.F. TO KEEP STRUCTURAL COVERAGE BELOW THE ZONING CODE ALLOWED MAXIMUM OF20.0%. 1/) 11. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO ENTRYWAY. WAS PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 75 S.F. in 11. 12. REVISION TO POOL DECKING AMOUNT DUE TO CHANGES IN POOL SIZE. ADDITIONAL 223 S.F. OF POOL DECKING. © 13. ADDITION OF 112.5 S.F. OF COVERED PORCH ADJACENT TO MASTER BATH. AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 14. REVISION TO JOIN LOCATION FOR RETAINING WALL ON EAST SIDE OF HOUSE TO LOGGIA. ALLOWS ACCESS TO LOGGIA FROM SIDE YARD. 15. REVISION TO GRADING OF REAR SLOPE. PROPOSING 1.5:1 SLOPE TO REPLACE SLOPE TO APPROXIMATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS. GRADING VOLUME CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AND DISTURBED AREA CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVISED. SOILS ENGINEER -TO BE - REQUIRING THIS:SLOPE,TO BE BUILT. SEE LETTER FROM TODD HOUSEAL DATED JULY 11, 2014. 215 C.Y. CUT & 215 C.Y. FILL. 550 C.Y. OVER -EX AND 650 C.Y. RE -COMPACTION. ADDITIONAL 6,965 S.F. OF DISTURBED AREA. SEE DETAIL 4, THIS SHEET FOR KEY AND BENCHING DETAIL. 16. REVISION TO OVERALL DISTURBED AREA TO NOW INCLUDE PREVIOUSLY OMITTED LOWER PAD DISTURBANCE & FUTURE STABLE ACCESS. REVISED 0 DISTURBED AREA IS 31,620 S.F. (79.72 %) 17. REVISED LOCATION TO FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL. © 18. DEPRESS EXISTING WINE ROOM LOCATION IN BASEMENT BY ADDITIONAL 3 FEET. REVISED VOLUME CALCULATIONS INCLUDED. ADDITIONAL 28 C.Y. OF CUT. It 19. ADDITION OF COVERED PORCH BETWEEN ENTRYWAY AND GARAGE. PREVIOUSLY OMITTED. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 57 S.F. © 20. ARCHITECTURAL REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ENTRYWAY. 21. REVISION TO CONCRETE WALK BETWEEN RETAINING WALL AND GARAGE. ADDITIONAL 43 S.F. OF PAVED WALK 22. FUTURE STABLE ACCESS WILL BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE CURRENT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DRIVEWAY. MINIMUM OF 6' WIDE AND MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 25%. ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 330 S.F. TO THE DISTURBED AREA. .•- • 23. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. Revisions By CZ 1▪ imu to N • O O C (NI M ins L m N Ccook •� v a> coo Q t� Lc) W c 2o� c CD 0 C -2 cd s� 75,Z U O M:°M m-U 3hid ELL- t cm) 6. CV i J 2 di u) Raaef INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 8B Mtg. Date: 8/19/14 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 862 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 7, 2014 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • September 18, 2007 Planning Commission approved by Resolution No. 2007-15 grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain. • October - November 2007 City Council took the case under jurisdiction and after holding public hearings upheld Planning Commission decision. • October 9, 2009 City Council granted two year extension to commence the work. • October 2011 staff approved grading plan only for foundation of basement. Staff was informed that due to field conditions and location of bedrock the basement needs to be deeper (14 feet) rather than as approved of 11' deep and that 1660 c.y. of dirt will be generated. Staff approved the depth of basement over the counter and 1,660 c.y. of export of dirt, if needed from the basement. • October 2011 City and RHCA staff approved temporary construction driveway off of Outrider. Condition stipulates that the road is to be restored to natural condition after construction. • October 2011 building permit issued for temporary construction road and demolition of the existing house. G • • • April 2012 Foundation only permit issued; (basement and grading for basement). • During construction of the basement and walls for basement, it was brought to City's attention that the basement dimension was larger than approved by the City in 2007. After reviewing the plans it was determined that the house would also be larger than originally approved. June 2012 -1st Stop Work Notice • After discussions with the applicant and his representatives and building and safety officials it was determined that the applicant could continue construction only of those parts and size of the basement that were previously permitted and for which building permits were obtained. (At that time building permits for the residence was not yet issued nor was the residence under construction). • August 2012 - the applicant submitted a revised application to allow the house and basement to be larger including the following: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement(incl. under the garage), 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive and reconstruct the existing approach to 40 and 42 Eastfield iv. off site grading (at 38 Eastfield Drive) for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill proposed to be taken from the project site) v. variance for driveway aprons separation vi. variance for construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height vii. exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, (19,682 square feet or 49.6 %) viii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot • September 2012 the Planning Commission approved the project with conditions that any modification, further construction/grading be brought back to the Commission. • October 2012 City Council took the case under jurisdiction. • October 2012 - 2'd Stop Work Notice after framing of basement walls and floor sheathing constructed without building permits. • November 2012 City Council approved the project, except for the location of the proposed new driveways. City Council requested that the applicant submit revised driveway approaches. • March 2013 applicant obtained all building permits for the approved project • Febr. 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified to the size/dimension of the basement. • July 2013 third party consulting engineer, hired by the City, certified the ridge height of the residence (17'). 1 • Dec. 2013 over -the counter approval of a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house; the size of the pool is reduced by the same amount. • After several submittals of the driveways that were very similar to the submittals reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the City Council on June 9, 2014 approved the two new driveway approaches. One of the conditions requires that pavers be used on those portions of the driveways located on 38 Eastfield Drive. • With the approval of the driveways, the City Council also upheld the Planning Commission Sept. 2012 approvals of the entitlements (CUP, Variance, SPR) for more than one driveway on a lot, for grading and walls in front setback and walls that are higher than allowed in setbacks. Essentially, in order to construct the driveways, these entitlements are necessary. CURRENT PROPOSAL 1. The residence is currently under construction. During construction the applicant made some changes. to the design of the house that require Planning Commission review. Additionally, the applicant would like to make other changes to the residence and grading. Staff requested that by the next Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provide elevation drawings of the proposed changes. The proposed modifications are listed as item # 1 through #22 on the Site Plan, page C1. Staff approved items #1 and #13. The garage shape was changed but not the size of the garage and a 112.5 square foot covered porch at the southwest corner of the house was approved. To keep the originally approved structural coverage, the size of the pool was reduced by the same amount. In summary, the applicant is seeking the following approvals: A. Site Plan Review for: a. Additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards of cut and fill dirt to restore the slope below the residence and to grade above the residence to accommodate the lowering of the garage b. 48 square foot electrical room addition outside the footprint of the basement, under the house porch c. Due to the condition that any changes to the project require Planning Commission review, a Site Plan review is required for all of the proposed changes to structural and hardscape elements, reduction in building pad area, new stairs to the proposed electrical room and to the lower level of the lot from a basement light well, depress 252 square feet of the basement 3' for a wine cellar, lower the garage finished floor by 2 feet to eliminate stairs between the house and garage, 132 sq.ft. additional covered porches, additional 35 lineal feet, 3' high wall along the driveway, location of the future stable, corral and access and reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet. B. Variances for: a. Exceedance of the disturbed area-79.7%; which includes the future access to the relocated stable and the slopes below and above the residence • • b. Higher than permitted grade of the slope below the residence, which is proposed at 1.5:1 c. Higher than permitted walls along staircases d. Basement electrical room outside the footprint of the basement 2. Site Plan Review: As a result of the previous approval for the larger house and basement, the grading was approved for a total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt, of which 3,647 cubic yards was to be exported. With the proposed grading of the slopes below and above the residence, additional grading of 2,030 cubic yards total is proposed. The previous approvals allowed the applicant to store and stock -pile the dirt from the project on the lower slope and on the lower area adjacent to Outrider, which was relatively flat. The condition of approval required the area to be returned to the pre -construction state after the job was completed. In addition, in order to lower the driveway and construct the two new approaches additional grading is required. 100 cubic yards of cut is needed to lower the driveway to meet the lowered elevation of the garage (if approved). The applicant would like to construct a 48 square foot electrical room under the loggia that extends along the entire length of the rear of the house and construct stairs for access to the electrical room. The area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. The walls were to be not higher than 5' above the top of slope. The proposed configuration would allow the basement to extend beyond the footprint of the residence and with the proposed stairs the top of slope would start 3-4 further away from the house. The applicant is not proposing an access from the electrical room into the basement. Basement floor plans previously approved show an electrical room just behind the garage basement. Due to the lowering of the driveway, the area of the building pad will be reduced by 499 square feet. Part of the driveway that was previously included in the building pad area, will be steeper than 10%, and therefore not considered part of the building pad. The building pad would be 12,386 square feet and have coverage of 55.6%, (previously approved 12,885 sq.ft. pad with 53.5% coverage). To gain square footage for the electrical room and covered porches, the applicant proposes to reduce the swimming pool to 458 square feet, and therefore the structural coverage of the net lot will not change and will be at 19.97%, as previously approved. The total coverage (structures and hardscape) will be less by 0.5% than previously approved, or 28.96%. The applicant proposes to utilize pavers over the entire driveway and the parking pad by the garage/house. Pavers are not counted as hardscape (impervious surfaces). The applicant proposes to construct 3'-wide staircase from the upper (house) level to the electrical room for utility staff access. In addition, an on grade 6' wide staircase and landing is proposed from the basement light well over the reconstructed slope to the lower level of the lot, (Section E on plan C2). The middle light well, on the plan, would have to be reconfigured and be opened up to the landing. All three light wells were approved to be depressed and not have exits or any openings, except from above. To exit the light wells a ladder would be insta ed. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. The City Council added the following condition to their approval: "This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the City." There is a 2-3 foot existing wall to the rear of the residence that was permitted to remain in the setback. The applicant is requesting to extend the wall approximately 15 feet and flatten the area in front of it to be able to access the loggia from the side yard. The additional wall requires a variance. The applicant has excavated 252 square feet of the basement 3-feet deeper than previously shown for a wine cellar. In the original 2007 application an 11' deep basement under the residence and 14' deep basement under the garage was approved. With the 2012 approval, due to location of bedrock and soils engineer recommendation, the basement under the house was approved at 14' deep and the basement under the garage at 16' deep. The portion of the basement to be utilized as wine cellar would be 17' in depth. The applicant is requesting to depress the garage by two feet, to eliminate the elevation differential between the house and garage and eliminate stairs between them. The height of the garage will not change, as it will be depressed downwards. The finished floor of the residence was approved at 1077 and the garage finished floor at 1079. The applicant proposes a 1077 finished floor elevation for both. With lowering of the garage it is necessary to grade the up slope (west) of the garage, in order for the previously approved 5' retaining wall along the building pad to remain at 5'. Additionally, lowering the garage will result in a steeper driveway and a longer than previously approved retaining wall along the driveway. The additional retaining wall would be 35 feet and not exceed 3' in height. Section 17.16.160(A)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requires maximum 12% slope for a driveway. However, the Planning Commission may approve steeper slopes. Retaining walls of up to 3' are allowed along driveways, and therefore no variance is required for this additional wall. The applicant also proposes to construct two new covered porches; one between the garage and the front entryway and the other between the entryway and the loggia, for a total of 132 square feet of new porches. As stated earlier, by reducing the pool to 458 square feet, the structural coverage of the lot is not affected. The applicant proposes a different location for the set aside area for the future stable and corral. The previous location required a Variance, which was granted, to set it partially in the required setback. The new location will be out of the setback but closer to the northerly property line. According to the applicant's representatives, the most • • appropriate location for the septic system is in the area of the previously set aside stable and corral. The access to the stable is proposed to be in the general location as the current temporary construction driveway. RHCA approval will be required for the access road to be located in the easement. 3. Variances With the additional grading, the disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 79.7% of the net lot area. Previously a variance was granted for 49.6% disturbance. The area utilized for stock piling was to be returned to a 2:1 grade. That area was not counted towards disturbance. However, it was discovered that the slope couldn't be returned to 2:1 grade, due to previous construction, soil stability and requires a keyway and additional compaction, and therefore the area needs to be re -graded and 6,965 square feet of area counted towards disturbance. Additionally, 1,145 square foot area is proposed to be graded for the upper slope for the revised garage finished floor elevation and to maintain a maximum retaining wall height of 5'. The disturbance includes calculations for the future stable and corral and the access thereto. A variance is also required for the 1.5:1 fill slope. The applicants representative states that 1.5:1 slope existed previously and if it was attempted to be put back at a 2:1 slope the area of disturbance would be much greater and the grading would project past the roadway easement on Outrider. A Geological report submitted to the City, states in part, that "a descending slope that existed between the residence and lower level area was to remain as a condition of approval; however, to facilitate safe working conditions for basement construction, the slope was modified. The project is now at a stage where restoration of the slope can be performed". However, the slope can only be restored to 1.5:1 grade A variance is also required for higher than allowed walls along the staircases. Both stairs will have a wall of up to 6.5' in height for a not to exceed 2-3' distance. The applicant proposes to construct a 48 square feet electrical room underneath the loggia, outside the footprint of the residence. The basement cannot project beyond the footprint of the residence, therefore a variance is requested. As stated under the Site Plan Review request, the area underneath the loggia was approved to be enclosed on all sides and not contain any uses. At the time of approval, the applicant and his contractor stated that the walls at the edge and underneath the loggia are necessary for support of the loggia. An electrical room was previously shown in the basement behind the garage basement. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. Recently a separate driveway approach was approved to serve 42 Eastfield. The applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of the old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 5. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The residential building pad is proposed at 12,386 square feet and will have coverage of 55.6% (previously approved 12,885 square feet with 54.0%. coverage). The set aside area for a stable and corral is approximately 1,800 square feet and will have coverage of 25% if a minimum 450 square foot stable is constructed. 7. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.97% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted), which is the same as previously approved. Total lot coverage, including structures, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,485 square feet or 29%, (reduction of 223 square feet from previous approval, due to the utilization of pavers over the entire driveway). 8. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 31,961 square feet or 80.5%. Previously approved disturbance was at 49.6%, including for the future stable. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 9. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 2,030 cubic yards of dirt, of which 80 cubic yards from the basement of the garage and wine cellar would be exported. 10. DRAINAGE: The upper slope will be collected in the swale which was previously proposed behind the retaining wall. This will be collected in catch basins then eventually routed to the existing drainage outlet structure by Outrider. The lower slope is proposed to be sheet flow with no collection devices. As the current slope is 1.5:1 and the proposed slope is 1.5:1, and there are no changes the amount impervious (other than the stairs) it is approximately the same drainage flow pattern and therefore does not need to be collected. There will be no additional water going over this manufactured slope. All water from the driveway and house will be collected on the northeasterly corner of the driveway parking pad and piped to the drainage outlet structure. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. In response to justification for the variances, the applicants agent state that the property is very unique, having steep opes and abutting two wide roadway • • easements. Any development would require substantial grading. The method of construction and previous approvals also had an impact on the disturbed area and the need for steeper than permitted slopes. The engineer for the project states that "due to the requirement to over -cut the slope for the construction of the retaining walls, the slope was more disturbed than previously and it is now required that the entire slope be reconstructed from the toe of slope in order to ensure overall slope stability". Further, she states that "if the slope was to be put in at 2:1 ratio then the disturbed area would be much greater and the grading would project almost to the rear roadway easement". 13. When reviewing a •site plan review and variance applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 14. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access. 15. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 16. Neighbors within 1,000 foot radius were notified of this hearing and notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 7, 2014. The neighbors at 38 Eastfield reviewed the plans and would like to see the additional porches, stable and service area staked. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: C-8D 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance eav R01,6:09 qC4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: WEEKLY MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2014 1. Several property owners along Middleridge Lane North requested information regarding the feasibility of constructing a sewer line on their street. On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 staff, including Mike Jenkins, held a meeting with 5 out of the 13 property owners along Middleridge Lane North. We provided them with information on the closest sewer line, topographical information, reviewed the most recent studies done for the Johns Canyon Road sewer proposal and the funding mechanisms. They indicated that they would be talking to the rest of the residents on Middleridge Lane North and get back to us. 2. A month ago or so, we received a letter from Anthony (Tony) Inferrera, the architect for 40 Easfield, Tonsich, that he is no longer the architect for this project. We have recently heard from Tony and his attorney, John Resich, that structural construction of the residence is progressing not per the approved structural plans. Mr. Tonsich has also recently submitted erroneous plans for the porch posts to the Association and different plans to the County. Those were retracted. For the structural conditions, both, the Community Association and City required Mr. Tonsich to re- submit plans to the County. The structural plan shows a beam that has been over engineered, which Mr. Resich claims has been installed for the purpose of future removal of several of the porch posts, that were required by the Architectural Committee. There is a footing at one wall of the basement, that Mr. Resich claims is designed so that the wall could be removed in the future, potentially enlarging the basement. Mr. Resich also claims that the proposed grading cannot be accomplished as it was presented and approved by the City. City staff has been in conversation with the owner's representatives to inform them that any grading that is different from the approved plans, would need to go back to the Planning Commission/City Council. In the past two weeks RHCA and City staff met twice with County building and grading engineers. In addition, the plan check engineer and the building inspector Page 1 of 2 • • recently inspected the site to compare the plans to the constructed conditions. Although the beam is over engineered and the footing could be designed differently, they meet the requirements of the Building Code. The County District Engineer tells us that the County cannot ask someone to under -engineer on the suspicion that the owner could at a future date change the construction, due to the over -engineered beam or footings. A correction notice is being prepared to require the owner to submit a grading plan showing the proposed restoration of slopes and grading. The building inspector and staff are following this project closely and inspections are made regularly. 3. An official from the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) visited the City this week to perform a "Risk Management Evaluation". The evaluation is a proactive approach of developing a personalized inventory of the issues confronting the city through identification of potential liability, property and workers' compensation exposures. Once the city receives the CJPIA recommendations, it will enable staff to undertake risk control, risk avoidance, or risk transfer actions to limit future losses. 4. Staff has received good comments on the joint study session between the City Council and RHCA Board concerning establishing assessment districts for undergrounding overhead utility lines and poles. Mike Jenkins did a fantastic job with his presentation on the assessment district formulation process and the City, RHCA, and SCE staff put in a lot of work in developing the handout documents for the public regarding assessment districts. Besides the Eastfield assessment district effort, staff is also now assisting residents on Williamsburg Lane with their assessment district interest. 5. The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) system that was established in 2009 to improve public safety communications is now ready to start constructing its system. As part of the system build out, they are constructing new 70 ft. mono poles and lattice poles and locating most of them at LA County Sheriff and Fire Stations. Fire Station 56 has been identified for a 70 ft. mono pole. LA-RICS has benefitted from State legislation that has exempted them from CEQA requirements for constructing these poles. We have voiced our concerns to LA- RICS officials that this planned pole is located in a prime vista point in Rolling Hills. If the pole stays in the same location of the existing pole at the station, it should not be a problem. But if it is relocated west on the property, it will most likely be problematic for the residents. LA-RICS will be working with the City and investigate various options for the planned mono pole, including a stealth pole. The cost sharing plan for LA-RICS is presently being finalized. Contract Cities will most likely see it tied to the Sheriff contract cost model once each city's costs are identified. Rolling Hills residents will also pay LA County Fire Department's share of LA-RICS through a property tax increase due to being part of the LA County Consolidated Fire District. Once these costs are identified, I will let the City Council know. RC:hl 02-28-74Weekl y-Merao.docx Page 2 of 2 ge& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 6-A Mtg. Date: 03-11-13 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR E THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 840 FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF A DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BY 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE FOR 40 AND 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE. SITE LOCATION: 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) ZONING AND SIZE: RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH REPRESENTATIVE: ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING ATTACHMENT: TRAFFIC ENGINEER REPORT RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST 1. On November 26, 2012, the City Council By Resolution No. 1135 partially approved and partially denied an application for modifications to a previously approved development in Zoning Case No. 745, and for new request for driveways and grading. Approval was granted for construction of a larger than previously approved residence, garage, basement and swimming pool, more grading and more export of dirt from the basement. The City Council denied an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for a second off -site driveway, grading for the driveway and retaining walls. 2. Members of the City Council required that the applicant return with a new driveway plan, preferably with one off -site driveway located further south to access 40 and 42 Eastfield, and included a condition in the Resolution that within 90-days of the partial approval and partial denial of the application the applicant submit a revised plan for the driveway. 3. On February 22, 2013 the applicant's engineer submitted a driveway plan, which staff deemed incomplete and requested corrections. On March 6, 2013 a revised plan was submitted. The revised plan is very similar to the plan submitted to the City ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive 1 Council in November and shows two new off -site driveways and retaining walls that require grading, except that the driveway serving 40 Eastfield, (closest to the driveway for 38 Eastfield) is proposed to be moved 2 feet south. The island planter between the driveways is proposed to be reduced in width by 7 feet and will be approximately 9 feet wide at the widest point. The proposed driveway approach to 42 Eastfield will be 33' wide. 4. The driveway plan was sent to the Traffic Engineer. The report is attached. 5. The southern proposed driveway for serving 42 Eastfield Drive requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variances as it is to be located on a lot that is less than 200 feet wide and less than 100 feet apart from the existing driveway; the walls require Variances for their location in the front setback and exceedance in height of 21/2 feet on the average. The project also requires a Variance to exceed the disturbed area of the lot, as the new driveway configurations would require additional grading. The request for similar entitlements were denied by the City Council at their November 26, 2012 meeting. Should the City Council wish to consider this proposal, the applicant would be required to submit the necessary applications and fees and, a public hearing would be scheduled. CONCLUSION 6. It is recommended that the City Council consider the following actions: a. Deny the proposed driveways and require that the applicant keep the existing configuration of one driveway approach serving 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive, except as was previously approved and required by the Fire Department. b. Require that the applicant submit the necessary applications and fees for consideration of the proposed driveways. A public hearing would be scheduled at a later time. c. Should the City Council consider option b above, members of the Council could additionally require that the plan be reviewed by the Traffic Commission. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive Memorandum TO: Yolanta Schwartz FROM: Vanessa Munoz, City Traffic Engineer DATE: February 7, 2013 SUBJECT: 42 Eastfield Driveway WI LLDAN Engineering t: n2.1 ram. ri MAR 0 7 2013 City of Rolling Hills Sj This memorandum is in response to the 42 Eastfield Drive driveway layout plan submitted to the City of 3/6/13. I understand the City requested a layout revision for the 42 and 40 Eastfield driveways, preferably a layout that showed one combined driveway for both 42 and 40 Eastfield. Furthermore, safety concerns or other traffic issues are not prompting the driveway modification. The plans for a revision were reviewed at the request of the City because the applicant and City Council are asking for consideration of a modification. The proposed layout shows a separate driveway for 42 and 40 Eastfield with a 9-foot dividing planter between the driveways. The proposed 42 Eastfield driveway approach is 33-feet which is greater than 20-feet and will provide a smooth ingress/egress. The width of the driveway within the property is 16- feet. The grade for the driveway is shown at 15%. The driveway widths at the approach and internally are acceptable. The grade provided for the driveway from a traffic safety stand point is not acceptable. The proposed grade minimizes the visibility of vehicles at the driveway approach as they are exiting the property and provides a short line of sight for Eastfield drivers. The driveway alignment should be redesigned to minimize the grade from 15% to 10% if the topographic conditions allow it. The proposed 40 Eastfield driveway approach is 32-feet which is greater than 20-feet and will provide a smooth ingress/egress. The width of the driveway within the property is 15- feet. The grade for the driveway is shown at 20%. The driveway widths at the approach and internally are acceptable. The grade provided for the driveway from a traffic safety stand point is not acceptable. The proposed grade minimizes the visibility of vehicles at the driveway approach as they are exiting the property and provides a short line of sight for Eastfield drivers. The driveway alignment should be redesigned to minimize the grade from 20% to 10% if the topographic conditions allow it. e(4 atc Rall4t9 getk • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 3 genda Item No. 6-A Mtg. Date: 11-26-12 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CI FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1135. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL AND PARTIAL DENIAL TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. THE APPROVAL ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, GARAGE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL AND INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES WITH EXPORT OF DIRT; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT AND TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT. THE DENIAL ENTAILS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE; A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST 1. It is recommended that the City Council review the enclose Resolution for partial approval, with conditions and partial denial in Zoning Case No. 824 and adopt the attached Resolution. 2. The City Council at the October 22, 2012 meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of partial approval and partial denial of the proposed project. The City Council by a 3-1 vote, requested that the resolution reflect approval of the larger than previously approved house, garage, ba ent and swimming pool; greater than n • • previously approved grading quantities and deeper basements; variance to locate the pool in the front yard area of the lot and exceedance of disturbance of the lot. The City Council further requested that the resolution reflect denial of the Conditional Use Permit for the additional driveway approach, grading for the new driveways and Variances for the walls along the proposed driveways. 3. The Resolution includes standard finding of facts and conditions, including the following: a. provide pervious surface for the motor court b. provide soundproofing for the mechanical equipment for the garage lift and the pool equipment area. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard for an air conditioning unit c. at key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant will fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City. d. provide landscaping to screen the light wells and back wall of the basement e. plant plants that would not result in a hedge and would not be higher than the ridge height of the house f. the area used for stock piling and the temporary construction driveway from Outrider Road shall be returned to their preconstruction topography and be certified by a third party engineer g• no further modifications to this project would be allowed and any future development would be subject to City Council review h. construction of the future stable and corral would be subject to the requirements at the time of the request i. stake the east side property line and setback line at all times j. there shall be no access from the garage basement to the house basement k. utility lines to be placed underground including removal of 2 poles 1. obtain Bldg & Safety approvals and permits; fees to be adjusted for the larger project including penalties 4. Staff required, and the applicant submitted revised calculations for disturbance, grading and lot coverage, to reflect the removal of the walls and driveways. The new calculations have been incorporated into the resolution, and are as follows: a. Structural coverage of the lot (max 20%): 19.9% b. Total coverage of the lot (max. 35%): 29.5% c. Disturbance of the lot (max 40%): 46.8% d. Grading quantities: TOTAL - 4,855 cubic yards: total export 3,647 cubic yards e. Building pad coverage: 54.0% 5. The applicant will retain the existing configuration of the driveway, off of 38 Eastfield, but it is required by the Fire Department that the driveway be widened. 6. A revised plan, showing the approved elements of the project has also been submitted. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 7. Staff obtained an estimate for a third party engineer to verify constuction and grading, as required by the conditions of approval. Willdan Engineering estimated that the site survey, inspection and office coordination will be approximately $7500. This includes up to 20 hours of survey work, site inspection and office coordination to determine setbacks, foundation locations, site wall locations, building height and "as - graded" conditions. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • t THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 110 RESOLUTION NO. 1135 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL AND PARTIAL DENIAL TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. THE APPROVAL ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, GARAGE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL AND INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES WITH EXPORT OF DIRT; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT AND TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT. THE DENIAL ENTAILS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE; A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91- EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review to modify previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 745 for grading and construction of a single family residence. The proposed modification included requests for additional grading and export of dirt, a larger house and garage, larger basement and larger swimming pool. In addition, the applicant requested Variances for exceedance of the disturbed area, to locate the pool in the front yard and to construct higher than allowed walls in the front yard setback along the driveways, as well as a Conditional Use permit to construct additional off site driveway at 38 Eastfield to serve the property at 42 Eastfield over subject property. Section 2. On September 18, 2012 The Planning Commission approved the request with conditions. On October 8, 2012 the City Council took jurisdiction of the case. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de novo hearings. Section 3. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application in the field on October 22, 2012 and at its regular meeting on October 22, 2012. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on. October 11, 2012. The applicant and his agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 and 42 Eastfield Drive, and from members of the City staff, County Building and Safety Engineers and the City Council have reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 1 Section 4. The prey ous approval, in 2007, consisted ofading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, and construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The disturbance of the lot was approved at 39.1%. The then existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain, but refurbished. Section 5. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 includes a condition on the property that any further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Following Planning Commission's decision, the City Council on October 8, 2007 took this case under jurisdiction. The Council expressed concerns over the design and appearance of the proposed basement, the visibility of the walls from Outrider Road, and the deck above the basement. Council members were concerned that the deck gives a two-story appearance to the structure. However, it was opinioned that the City has no jurisdiction over the design or architecture of a structure. Section 6. During the RHCA review process of the project in 2007, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence and the location of the basement wells were modified. Meanwhile the Los Angeles County Building Code for light and ventilation for basement construction have also changed, which necessitated changes to the basement well design and location. Section 7. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, including widening of the existing driveways and construction of a larger than previously approved residence, basement, garage and pool the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development, which includes the residence, garage, basement and pool, 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 project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements and no variances are required for setbacks. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The proposed driveway approaches and walls along the driveways are not compatible with the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed driveways and walls, do not maintain compatibility with existing topography and do not minimize grading or cut and fill. The proposed driveway approaches are located on a neighbor's lot and require a Conditional Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 2 1 Use Permit as well as var ces, because they would be locate�on a lot that is narrow and where the construction would result in three driveway approaches located on the off site lot and would be less than 100 feet apart, as required by the Zoning Ordinance and would be steeper than recommended by engineering standards. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, 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 permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. Following the original approval, geology and soils studies were prepared. The increased size of the basement was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur, and to eliminate the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased due to the depth of the bedrock. With the increase in the basement, the applicant proposes larger house. D. 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 new residences in the vicinity of said lot. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original residence. The construction of an attached garage replaces previously existed illegal detached garage. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. E. 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. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because with the denial of the additional driveway approaches at 38 Eastfield, the properties will utilize the existing driveways, which will be widened as required by the Fire Department with minimal grading or disturbance. G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 3 required, as detailed hereinith respect to this request for a vlince, the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and in the same zone. Section 17.16.070 of the Municipal Code provides that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The topographic nature of the subject property is such that construction of the driveway adjacent to the home will require a fill slope that complies with other applicable development standards. While the fill slope in the area of the driveway will only be two feet thick on average, both the cut and fill areas are counted in the disturbed area calculation. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. Due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, and the size of the lot, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not included in the net lot area calculations, therefore considerably diminishing the size of the lot. In addition the driveway serving the adjacent property is included in the disturbed area of the lot, therefore adding to the disturbance of the lot. Construction of the fill slope will increase the disturbed area on the site from its current 40% of the net lot area to approximately 46.8%, which includes the future stable. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of better -designed driveway because the topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.170. 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. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Section 10. Section 17.16.200(I) prohibits the construction of a swimming pool or other structures in the front yard area of a lot, except where a Variance is approved. The applicants are requesting to construct a 750 square foot swimming pool with a spa in the front yard, in the same general location of a previously existing pool. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 4 A. There are extional and extraordinary circumstes and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The proposed pool will be located in the same area of the front yard as previously existed pool, except that it would be larger. The location of the residence and the topographical features of the lot prevent the pool to be located in a different area. The building pad was graded in a manner that the construction of a pool and outdoor living amenities lend itself to the front location. The topography of the lot together with the fact that the pad has been already created, cause difficulty in constructing the new improvements elsewhere on the property. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the new construction elsewhere on the property. The lot is unique in that it is steep behind the residence and any different configuration for a pool on the lot would require additional grading. The pool would be located in an area least obtrusive to adjacent properties and in the same location as the existing pool. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, 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, is located in an area of an existing pool and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed construction will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. The proposed pool and spa will not encroach into the existing or potentially future equestrian uses on the property. A suitable area for a future stable and corral has been set aside. 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. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Modified Site Plan Review for grading of total of 4,855 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,647 cubic yards would be exported; construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basements, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa; and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot (46.8%) and to locate the swimming pool in front yard area of the lot; and DENIES a Conditional Use Permit for numerous driveway approaches and Variances for the location of driveways walls and the driveway approach separation on a narrow lot, in Zoning Case No. 824 with the following conditions: Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 5 A. The approval s all expire within two years from thhfective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions of approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the City Planning Department dated November 19, 2012. The size of the basement, including garage basement shall not be greater than the size of the house and garage. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. E. This project including all hardscape shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project and additional evaluation. All fees and penalties shall be paid based on the revised project approved herein. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 19.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes 450 sq.ft. future stable. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,818 square feet or 29.8 % in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, (approximately 3,008 square feet in total) shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturers specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. J. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for widening of the existing driveway, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Department, all new easements, if needed for the widening of the driveway shall be obtained and recorded as well as quit claims of old easements. Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 6 ef) K. The disturbOarea of the lot shall not exceed .60 square feet or 48.6% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable and corral pad. L. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,885 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 54.0%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. N. Grading shall not exceed 4,855 cubic yards of dirt total to include 4,250 cubic yards of cut, of which 3,647 cubic yards may be exported. A third party engineer at the applicant's expense shall certify final grading. The City shall select the engineer. O. The proposed retaining wall, which replaces previously existing retaining wall located along the southern boundary of the building pad, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade. P. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall be at 1079 elevation. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. The basement shall not exceed 14 feet in depth and the garage basement may not exceed 16 feet in depth. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. Q. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. To meet this requirement the applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City. R. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 750 square feet as measured along the water line of the structures. S. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. T. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning unit. U. The lower portion of the lot utilized, as staging and stock piling of dirt during construction shall be returned to its pre -construction topography and be re -vegetated. A third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. The area designated for a future stable and corral shall remain pervious at all times, (unless stable and corral are constructed) and shall remain vegetated. Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) V. The temporary onstruction driveway, off of Outrer Road shall be restored to its pre -construction topography and condition and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. W. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. X. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas, staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to obtaining "rough" grading certification. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Y. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield and one located along 40 Eastfield shall be removed. Z. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AA. Minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AB. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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.vhv?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. AC. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 8 a. 1 AD. The propert)n which the project is located shecontain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. AE. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AF. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AG. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AH. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2011 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. AI. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AJ. 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. AK. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AL. Perimeter easements _ and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except if approved by the RHCA. AM. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AN. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 9 resolution. Construction Astable, if requested, shall be su ct to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. AO. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AP. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a revised grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. AQ. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO1'1ED THIS ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 10 - DAY OF 2012. JAMES BLACK, MAYOR 1 1 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) . I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1135 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL AND PARTIAL DENIAL TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT. THE APPROVAL ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGER THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESIDENCE, GARAGE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL AND INCREASED GRADING QUANTITIES WITH EXPORT OF DIRT; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT AND TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT. THE DENIAL ENTAILS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE; A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91- EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on , 2012 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 11 eitey Rea, 'Wei& RECOMMEND CONTINUANCE TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 8B Mtg. Date: 07-17-12 AND MEMBERS OF THE FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JULY 5, 2012 REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION The applicant Mr. Nicholas Tonsich is requesting a modification to a previously approved project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission schedule a field trip to view the project and continue the public hearing to a date specific field trip. 1 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Heidi Luce, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 3-A (FIELD TRIP): ZONING CASE NO. 824. (MODIFICATION) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH, 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 19-EF) ROLLING HILLS CA. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR GRADING AND TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO LOCATE RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE HIGHER THAN PERMI I TED, TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES TO BE CLOSER THAN 100 FEET, AND TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT AN OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). DATE: October 22, 2012 Councilmember Heinsheimer has recused himself from consideration of this item. He will not participate in the deliberation on this matter. • • ,10 al Rallato Wieek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 3-A Mtg. Date: 10-22-12 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING OCTOBER 11, 2012 RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST 1. It is recommended that the City Council view the project in the field, open the public hearing, take public testimony and continue the meeting to the regular City Council meeting on Monday, October 22, 2012, beginning at 7:30PM. 2. The applicant Mr. Nicholas Tonsich requested modifications to a previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745 as well as new requests. The modifications and new requests are as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported (modification from previous approval) ii. construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa (modification from previous approval) iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) (new request) iv. construction of over 3-foot high walls along the driveways, (new request) • • B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6% (new request due to driveways) ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height, (new request) iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot, (modification from previous approval) iv. to locate a third driveway approach (one reconfigured) on a property with 123-foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart, (new request) C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive over 40 Eastfield, (new request) BACKGROUND 3. After several lengthy meetings, discussions and deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-1 vote. The project was reported to the City Council on October 8, 2012, at which time members of the City Council took this project under jurisdiction. Therefore, the review of this proposal started de novo. A field trip public hearing was scheduled for October 22, 2012. 4. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 626 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at the existing size of 450 sq.ft. but reconstructed. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1 %. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 5. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council, after taking the case under jurisdiction, expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. 6. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration, and have changed, leaving the design aspect to RHCA and the light and ventilation, thus number and location of wells to the Building Department. At the same time the requirements for light and ventilation under the Los Angeles County Building Code have changed, and the RHCA also amended their standards for basement wells. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 7. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With these changes, the applicant revised the location and size of the basements wells and size of the porch. 8. Prior to grading, the City approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 9. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. According to the applicant, the site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. A letter of request and explanation for the modification is attached. In addition, the applicant's architect stated that the architecture of the house calls for 3- foot thick walls and pockets towards which the windows and doors open into. The cut outs and the walls were not counted in the square footage of the enlarged house. Also, RH Architectural Committee originally approved a light well for the basement in the vicinity of the east side yard setback line. The light well was not required by the Building Department, and was eliminated from the plans. With the well being removed the applicant, without City approval, moved the house and the basement to be in line with the wall of the light well, thus increasing the size of the structure in easterly direction. 10. The ridge height of the residence is not proposed to change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate car lifts. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. 11. The two basements, one under the residence and one under the garage will be 5,751 square feet total. There is no access from one to the other basement. Due to concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners regarding noise, the architect submitted noise specifications for the lift in the garage. The Planning Commission placed a condition that the noise emitted by the lift in the garage be no greater than a standard air conditioning unit. 12. Comparing the originally approved footprint of the house to the footprint of the proposed house, in general, the proposed house would increase by 1,020 square feet (including the pockets for doors and windows, as measured from the outside of the structure), and basement by 2,772 square feet including the garage basement. Measuring the line of the house on the plan, the house is 828 square feet larger, and the cut outs are approximately 192 square feet. The residence and basement are proposed to be 6-10 feet wider and approximately 10 feet longer than previously proposed. In addition, the ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • applicant is requesting to enlarge the pool from the previously existing 450 square feet to 750 square feet. The construction of the pool has not commenced. 13. Two stop work orders were issued by the building official on the property. Staff previously allowed the applicant to continue work within the parameters of the originally approved footprint of the basement and grading and for which building permit was issued to the applicant. It has been observed that the applicant has gone beyond that approval. 14. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. The roadway easements are 30 feet wide along each frontage. Excluding the roadway easements, the lot is 1.16 acres in size. For development purposes, as measured by the City, the property is less than an acre or 39,664 square feet (0.91 acres). The property slopes away from Eastfield Drive, then flattens to a building pad and slopes down again towards Outrider Road. The buildable pad is 12,885 square feet and the proposed coverage on this pad would be 54.0%. 15. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach serving 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield Drive property. 16. After reviewing several different driveway proposals, the Traffic Commission at their January 26, 2012 meeting recommended that the City Council approve the approaches. The Traffic Engineer stated that the only way to serve 42 Eastfield with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reconstructed and it will serve 40 Eastfield only. If the CUP for the curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents for abandoning the old easements and establishing new easements, which will have to be signed and recorded between the three neighbors. It is requested that the City Council review the request for the new driveway approach and reconfiguration of the existing driveway approach. 17. Several walls are necessary in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of the walls would be located in front yard setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. On the average the walls would exceed 2.5' in height, which requires a Variance. The Zoning Code allows for up to 3' high walls along driveways in setbacks or front yards. 18. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 19. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 20. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 21. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have pervious pavers surface, which is not counted towards the total lot coverage. 22. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1 %. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 23. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill, a larger pool, house, garage and basement. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 24. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, more than one driveway on a property requires a Conditional Use Permit. A legal nonconforming condition exists on the property at 38 Eastfield, because there are two driveway approaches. The proposed third driveway requires a CUP and a Variance because it is located less than 100 feet from the adjacent driveway on the same lot. 25. All utility lines to the residence will be placed underground, and the pole on 38 Eastfield will be removed. 26. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 27. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage. The previous approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage of the pool does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in therear of the house, as more grading would be required. The property owner explained that the smaller pool does not serve his family well. In addition, a letter from the applicant's engineer explaining the required variances and construction is enclosed. 28. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission and City Council consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 29. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 30. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD —COMPARISON TABLE ADDRESS RESIDENCE LOT AREA** 7 Outrider 4,483* 51,940 45 Eastfield 5,204* 119,370 41 Eastfield 2,451 36,720 39 Eastfield 2,783 35,950 44 Eastfield 3,183* 38,610 42 Eastfield 1,854 34,660 38 Eastfield 2,088 42,470 36 Eastfield 5,649 36,330 AVERAGE 3,462 49,506 40 Eastfield 4,075 approved 50,960 5,095 proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from propertv line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. DRIVEWAY(s) AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PERVIOUS SURFACE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GUEST HOUSE AND FUTURE STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. Must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND APPROVALS AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AS EXISTED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION Single family residence with unauthorized detached garage & storage structure Residence 2355 sq.ft. Garage 400 sq.ft. Storage shed 310 sq.ft Stable 0 Equip.shed/service 51 sq.ft. Pool 442 sq.ft TOTAL 3558 sq.ft. AS APPROVED IN 2002 & AMENDED in 2005 due to a requirement for remediation of the slope below the residence Substantial addition, mixed use structure-garage/rec. room, guesthouse & future stable AS PROPOSED IN 2007 (not approved) New Residence, detached garage, & future stable Residence 3021sq.ft Residence 4496 sq.ft. Garage 596 sq.ft. Garage 651 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Pool 442 sq.ft Pool 442 sq.ft. Equip.shed 51 sq.ft Equip.shed 51 sq.ft. Guesthouse 800 sq.ft. Cov. Porch 624 sq.ft. Service/vd 96 salt. Entryway 110 sq.ft. Service/yd 96 sq.ft. TOTAL 5456 sq.f Basement 3123 so.ft. TOTAL 6920 sq.ft. APPROVED IN 2007 New single family residence, attached garage w/basement and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL Driveway 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways TOTAL 4075 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2979 sa.ft. 6448 sq.ft 2304 sq.ft. 2044 sq.ft. 2125 sq.ft. 465 sa.ft. 6,938 sq.ft. 8.97% 13.7% 17.5% of 39,664 sq.ft. net lot 6,316 s.f. or 16.2% area 24.16% 29.7°% 34.9% 35.3% 40.8% N/A 54.2% (including stable and quest house) N/A 784 cubic yards of cut 784 cubic yards of fill 32.3% 23,980 sq.ft. 60.0% 44.2% of 13,619 sq.ft pad 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 1,182 cubic yards cut 1,182 cubic yards fill, including basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% Page 1 of 2 13,254 s.f. or 33.4% 12,885 s.f. or 40%; W/O 407 s.f. porch. 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 833 cubic yards cut 833 cubic yards fill, plus export of dirt from basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% CURENTLY REQUESTED (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) (Sept. 2012) New single family residence, attached garage w/basement, pool and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL 5095 sq.ft. 698 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 750 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 646 sq.ft. 136 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 5732 sa.ft. 7922 sq.ft. Primary Driveway 563 sq.ft. 2nd drwy 2406 sq.ft. Pool deck 842 sq.ft. Walkways 85 sq.ft. TOTAL 3.896 sq.ft. Grass Pavers 3,008 sq.ft. 7,922 sq.ft. or 19.97% 11,818 sq.ft. or 29.8% (coverage is Tess due to the proposed use of grass pavers) 12,885 s.f. bldg pad: 6,963 sq.ft. or 54.0% (excl. 509 sq.ft. porch) 3,961 sq.ft. pad. 12.2% 4383 c.y. cut incl. 3390 c.y, from basement; 868 c.y. fill Export 3,390 from bsmnt 38 Eastfield - cut 180.c.y. fill 305 c.y.; (Dirt balanced from 40 Eastfield) 19,682 sq.ft. or 49.6% (including future stable area) building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property over neighbors property N/A NJA Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission review Planning Commission review Page 2 of 2 Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property; to be reconfigured Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition d '1.i'� 'E�i" � Rf. .'3 " ! "'� r s.'"i i:,� . cr'� :F" 7L•..' 6.�ei I is _ July 30, 2012 Planning Dept. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Yolanta Swartz, Planning Director Subject: Revised applications for 40 Eastfield, R.H. Yolanta: This letter will serve to reply to your July 6, 2012, inquiry regarding the basis for the application for residence structural increase at the above -referenced property. We are revising the grading plan and applications as you have requested to clarify some of the parameters as we have discussed. We have changed the following items for your review and approval: Initially, the basement was increased in size and depth due to the site geological conditions. . This increased size was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur. This also eliminated the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased from 11 feet to 14 feet due to the lower depth of the bedrock. The basement is not encroaching in the sideyard setbacks, and essentially expanded in an east -west direction, not towards either adjoining neighbor. The basement has been extended to include being under the three car garage. This basement will allow two car lifts to be installed to provide car storage below the garage in the basement which allows the following: With the lift in the raised position, a car will enter the garage, the lift will lower, the ceiling of the lift will then be level with the garage floor, and another car can be garaged on this ceiling of the lift. This operation will be reversed to drive the two cars out of this one car space. Additionally, the garage is proposed to be increased approximately 100 sq. ft. due to a modified design of the garage with three 9 foot wide garage doors that were previously designed at 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide garage doors would have resulted in a limited useful garage when accounting for wall thickness and the utility of accommodating full size vehicles and SUVs. The proposed structural lot coverage does not exceed the guideline of 35%. Incidentally, the -onsich's lot is about 1.5 acres (about 62,000 sq. feet) gross and they are requesting about a 100 square foot house (which is consistent with similar properties at 36 Easffield and 66 Eastfield recently offered for sale that exceed 5,000 square feet on lots of approximately 45,000 and 60,000 square feet respectively). Furthermore, the design of the house is early California Ranchero, which requires 18 to 24 inch thick walls with recessed windows and doors. This style of architecture is adversely penalized when square footage is calculated to the exterior of the walls. In certain situations the square footage of the house is determined by excluding the area of the exterior walls, the area of the stairs/ elevators and chimneys which would reduce the floor area. Once these areas are excluded, the net floor area is quite close to the approved square footage area. Therefore, the application seeks to preserve the room sizes and layout as initially designed with a slightly larger gross square footage necessitated by unforeseen geological conditions, and to allow for the residence structure to encompass the entire area of the slightly increased foundational walls. The main floor of the house and the ridge height have remained the same as shown on the approved plan. Another item that has changed is the pool has been increased from 450 sq. feet to 750 square feet. Due to the pool being in the front yard and proposing a larger pool than the original legal nonconforming pool in the front yard requires us to apply for an additional variance. The pool will not be visible from any adjacent street. We will be submitting drawings and the required calculated areas for your review and approval by August 1, 2012 for the Planning Commission field trip on August 14, 2012. If you need more information or have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, President • • @ MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Heidi Luce, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 5-A: ZONING CASE NO. 824. (MODIFICATION) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH, 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 19-EF) ROLLING HILLS CA. REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR GRADING AND TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO LOCATE RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH WOULD BE HIGHER THAN PERMITTED, TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES TO BE CLOSER THAN 100 FEET, AND TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT AN OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). DATE: October 22, 2012 Councilmember Heinsheimer has recused himself from consideration of this item. He will not participate in the deliberation on this matter. TO: FROM: • 64 a/Re"fig, qez INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 5A Mtg. Date: 10-22-12 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING OCTOBER 11, 2012 RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST 1. It is recommended that the City Council, having visited the site earlier in the evening, review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. Councilmember Lay visited the site separately on October 12, 2012 with staff. 2. The options before the City Council in this case are as follows: a. b. c. d. approve the project as submitted, with conditions approve some aspects of the project and deny others deny the project in its totality request that the applicant revise the project In either of these cases, after completing deliberation and closing of the public hearing, Council members should direct staff to prepare a Resolution for Council's consideration at the next meeting. Whether the City Council approves or denies the project, it must make findings that the project either meets or does not meet the criteria of the Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permits as listed at the end of this report. Should an approval be granted, the City Council could require that the following conditions be met, as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. provide pervious surface for the driveways located at 38 Eastfield Drive 2. provide pervious surface for ti motor court • • 3. provide sound proofing for the mechanical equipment for the garage lift and the pool equipment area. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard for an air conditioning unit 4. at key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City. 5. provide landscaping to screen the basement walls 6. plant plants that would not result in a hedge and would not be higher than the ridge height of the house 7. the area used for stock piling and the temporary construction driveway from Outrider Road shall be returned to their preconstruction contours and shall be certified by a third party engineer 8. no further modifications to this project is allowed and any future development is subject to Planning Commission/City Council review 9. construction of the future stable and corral would be subject to the requirements at the time of the request 10. stake the east side property line and setback line at all times 11. prior to obtaining a grading permit for 38 Eastfield for the driveways, obtain all necessary agreements and record the new easements and quit claim documents 12. there shall be no access from the garage basement to the house basement 13. utility lines to be placed underground including removal of a pole on 38 Eastfield Should the applicant revise the project, the City Council may continue the hearings or remand the case back to the Planning Commission. Depending on the scope of the changes, the City Council may want to conduct another field trip. 3. The applicant Mr. Nicholas Tonsich requested modifications to a previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745 as well as new requests. The modifications and new requests are as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported (modification from previous approval) ii. construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa (modification from previous approval) iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) (new request) iv. construction of over 3-foot high walls along the driveways, (new request) B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6% (new request due to driveways) ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height, (new request) iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot, (modification from previous approval) iv. to locate a third driveway approach (one reconfigured) on a property with 123-foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart, (new request) C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive over 40 Eastfield, (new request) BACKGROUND 4. After several lengthy meetings, discussions and deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-1 vote. The project was reported to the City Council on October 8, 2012, at which time members of the City Council took this project under jurisdiction. Therefore, the review of this proposal started de novo. A field trip public hearing was held on October 22, 2012. 5. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 626 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at the existing size of 450 sq.ft. but remodeled. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1%. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 6. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council, after taking the case under jurisdiction, expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. 7. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration, and have changed, leaving the design aspect to RHCA and the light and ventilation, thus number and location of wells to the Building Department. At the same time the requirements for light and ventilation under the Los Angeles County Building Code have changed, and the RHCA also amended their standards for basement wells. 8. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With these changes, the applicant revised the location and size of the basements wells and size of the porch. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 9. Prior to grading, the City approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 10. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. According to the applicant, the site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. A letter of request and explanation for the modification is attached. In addition, the applicant's architect stated that the architecture of the house calls for 3- foot thick walls and pockets towards which the windows and doors open into. The cut outs and the walls were not counted in the square footage of the enlarged house. Also, RH Architectural Committee originally approved a light well for the basement in the vicinity of the east side yard setback line. The light well was not required by the Building Department, and was eliminated from the plans. With the well being removed the applicant, without City approval, moved the house and the basement to be in line with the wall of the light well, thus increasing the size of the structure in easterly direction. 11. The ridge height of the residence is not proposed to change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate car lifts. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. 12. The two basements, one under the residence and one under the garage will be 5,751 square feet total. There is no access from one to the other basement. Due to concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners regarding noise, the architect submitted noise specifications for the lift in the garage. The Planning Commission placed a condition that the noise emitted by the lift in the garage be no greater than a standard air conditioning unit. 13. Comparing the originally approved footprint of the house to the footprint of the proposed house, in general, the proposed house would increase by 1,020 square feet (including the pockets for doors and windows, as measured from the outside of the structure), and basement by 2,772 square feet including the garage basement. Measuring the line of the house on the plan, the house is 828 square feet larger, and the cut outs are approximately 192 square feet. The residence and basement are proposed to be 6-10 feet wider and approximately 10 feet longer than previously proposed. In addition, the applicant is requesting to enlarge the pool from the previously existing 450 square feet to 750 square feet. The construction of the pool has not commenced. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 14. Two stop work orders were issued by the building official on the property. Staff previously allowed the applicant to continue work within the parameters of the originally approved footprint of the basement and grading and for which building permit was issued to the applicant. It has been observed that the applicant has gone beyond that approval. 15. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. The roadway easements are 30 feet wide along each frontage. Excluding the roadway easements, the lot is 1.16 acres in size. For development purposes, as measured by the City, the property is less than an acre or 39,664 square feet (0.91 acres). The property slopes away from Eastfield Drive, then flattens to a building pad and slopes down again towards Outrider Road. The buildable pad is 12,885 square feet and the proposed coverage on this pad would be 54.0%. 16. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach serving 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield Drive property. 17. After reviewing several different driveway proposals, the Traffic Commission at their January 26, 2012 meeting recommended that the City Council approve the approaches. The Traffic Engineer stated that the only way to serve 42 EastfieId with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reconstructed and it will serve 40 Eastfield only. If the CUP for the curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents for abandoning the old easements and establishing new easements, which will have to be signed and recorded between the three neighbors. It is requested that the City Council review the request for the new driveway approach and reconfiguration of the existing driveway approach. 18. Several walls are necessary in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of the walls would be located in front yard setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. On the average the walls would exceed 2.5' in height, which requires a Variance. The Zoning Code allows for up to 3' high walls along driveways in setbacks or front yards. 19. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 20. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 21. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 22. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have pervious pavers surface, which is not counted towards the total lot coverage. 23. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1%. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 24. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill, a larger pool, house, garage and basement. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 25. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, more than one driveway on a property requires a Conditional Use Permit. A legal nonconforming condition exists on the property at 38 Eastfield, because there are two driveway approaches. The proposed third driveway requires a CUP and a Variance because it is located less than 100 feet from the adjacent driveway on the same lot. 26. All utility lines to the residence will be placed underground, and the pole on 38 Eastfield will be removed. 27. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 28. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage. The previous approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage of the pool does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in the rear of the house, as more grading would be required. The property owner explained that the smaller pool does not serve his family well. In addition, a letter from the applicant's engineer explaining the required variances and construction is enclosed. 29. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission and City Council consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 30. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 31. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD -COMPARISON TABLE ADDRESS RESIDENCE LOT AREA** 7 Outrider 4,483* 51,940 45 Eastfield 5,204* 119,370 41 Eastfield 2,451 36,720 39 Eastfield 2,783 35,950 44 Eastfield 3,183* 38,610 42 Eastfield 1,854 34,660 38 Eastfield 2,088 42,470 36 Eastfield 5,649 36,330 AVERAGE 3,462 49,506 40 Eastfield 4,075 approved 50,960 5,095 proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ® SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear. 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. DRIVEWAY(s) AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PERVIOUS SURFACE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GUEST HOUSE AND FUTURE STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. Must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND APPROVALS AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AS EXISTED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION Single family residence with unauthorized detached garage & storage structure Residence 2355 sq.ft. Garage 400 sq.ft. Storage shed 310 sq.ft Stable 0 Equip.shed/service 51 sq.ft. Pool 442 sa.ft TOTAL 3558 sq.ft. 8.97% 24.16% 35.3% N/A N/A 32.3% AS APPROVED IN 2002 & AMENDED in 2005 due to a requirement for remediation of the slope below the residence Substantial addition, mixed use structure-g arage/rec. room, guesthouse & future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Guesthouse Service/vd 3021 sq.ft 596 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft 51 sq.ft 800 sq.ft. 96 sa.ft. TOTAL 5456 sq.f 13.7% 29.7% 40.8% 54.2% (including stable and guest house) 784 cubic yards of cut 784 cubic yards of fill 23,980 sq.ft. 60.0% AS PROPOSED IN 2007 (not approved) New Residence, detached garage, & future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL 4496 sq.ft. 651 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 3123 sa.ft. 6920 sq.ft. 17.5% of 39,664 sq.ft. net lot area 34.9% 44.2% of 13,619 sq.ft pad 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 1,182 cubic yards cut 1,182 cubic yards fill, including basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% APPROVED IN 2007 New single family residence, attached garage w/basement and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL Driveway 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways TOTAL 4075 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2979 sa.ft. 6448 sq.ft 2304 sq.ft. 2044 sq.ft. 2125 sq.ft. 465 sa.ft. 6,938 sq.ft. 6,316 s.f. or 16.2% 13,254 s.f. or 33.4% 12,885 s.f. or 40%; W/O 407 s.f. porch. 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 833 cubic yards cut 833 cubic yards fill, plus export of dirt from basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% CURENTLY REQUESTED (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) (Sept. 2012) New single family residence, attached garage w/basement, pool and future stable Residence 5095 sq.ft. Garage 698 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Pool 750 sq.ft. Equip.shed 51 sq.ft. Cov. Porch 646 sq.ft. Entryway 136 sq.ft. Service/vd 96 sq.ft. Basement 5732 sa.ft. TOTAL 7922 sq.ft. Primary Driveway 563 sq.ft. 2nd drvy 2406 sq.ft. Pool deck 842 sq.ft. Walkways 85 sa.ft. TOTAL 3,896 sq.ft. Grass Pavers 3,008 sq.ft. 7,922 sq.ft. or 19.97% 11,818 sq.ft. or29.8% (coverage is less due to the proposed use of grass pavers) 12,885 s.f. bldg pad; 6,963 sq.ft. or 54.0% (excl. 509 sq.ft. porch) 3,961 sq.ft. pad. 12.2% 4383 c.y. cut incl. 3390 c.y. from basement; 868 c.y. fill Export 3,390 from bsmnt 38 Eastfield - cut 180.c.y. fill 305 c.y.; (Dirt balanced from 40 Eastfield) 19,682 sq.ft. or 49.6% (including future stable area) Page 1 of 2 building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS sO) N/A Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property over neighbors property N/A Planning Commission condition N/A Planning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission review Planning Commission review Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission condition IPlanning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property; to be reconfigured Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Page 2 of 2 • • July 30, 2012 Planning Dept. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Yolanta Swartz, Planning Director Subject: Revised applications for 40 Eastfield, R.H. Yolanta: This letter will serve to reply to your July 6, 2012, inquiry regarding the basis for the application for residence structural increase at the above -referenced property. We are revising the grading plan and applications as you have requested to clarify some of the parameters as we have discussed. We have changed the following items for your review and approval: Initially, the basement was increased in size and depth due to the site geological conditions. . This increased size was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur. This also eliminated the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased from 11 feet to 14 feet due to the lower depth of the bedrock. The basement is not encroaching in the sideyard setbacks, and essentially expanded in an east -west direction, not towards either adjoining neighbor. The basement has been extended to include being under the three car garage. This basement will allow two car lifts to be installed to provide car storage below the garage in the basement which allows the following: With the lift in the raised position, a car will enter the garage, the lift will lower, the ceiling of the lift will then be level with the garage floor, and another car can be garaged on this ceiling of the lift. This operation will be reversed to drive the two cars out of this one car space. Additionally, the garage is proposed to be increased approximately 100 sq. ft. due to a modified design of the garage with three 9 foot wide garage doors that were previously designed at 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide garage doors would have resulted in a limited useful garage when accounting for wall thickness and the utility of accommodating full size vehicles and SUVs. The proposed structural lot coverage does not exceed the guideline of 35%. Incidentally, the -onsich's lot is about 1.5 acres (about 62,000 sq. feet) gross and they are requesting about a 100 square foot house (which is consistent with similar properties at 36 Eastfield and 66 • Eogineering Corp, Eastfield recently offered for sale that exceed 5,000 square feet on lots of approximately 45,000 and 60,000 square feet respectively). Furthermore, the design of the house is early California Ranchero, which requires 18 to 24 inch thick walls with recessed windows and doors. This style of architecture is adversely penalized when square footage is calculated to the exterior of the walls. In certain situations the square footage of the house is determined by excluding the area of the exterior walls, the area of the stairs/ elevators and chimneys which would reduce the floor area. Once these areas are excluded, the net floor area is quite close to the approved square footage area. Therefore, the application seeks to preserve the room sizes and layout as initially designed with a slightly larger gross square footage necessitated by unforeseen geological conditions, and to allow for the residence structure to encompass the entire area of the slightly increased foundational walls. The main floor of the house and the ridge height have remained the same as shown on the approved plan. Another item that has changed is the pool has been increased from 450 sq. feet to 750 square feet. Due to the pool being in the front yard and proposing a larger pool than the original legal nonconforming pool in the front yard requires us to apply for an additional variance. The pool will not be visible from any adjacent street. We will be submitting drawings and the required calculated areas for your review and approval by August 1, 2012 for the Planning Commission field trip on August 14, 2012. If you need more information or have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, President o • -_-_._-_- eeret 4 Rea, gee& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 4-A Mtg. Date: 10-08-12 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 5 THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-17. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS, WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report including new driveway at 38 Eastfield, or provide other direction to staff. ZC NO. 815 5 Johns Canyon Rd. e • • 2. The applicant Mr. Nicholas Tonsich requested modifications to a previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745 as well as new requests, which require discretionary review. The modifications and new requests are as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,732 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) iv. construction of over 3-foot high walls along the driveways. B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 % ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height. iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the iv. to locate two driveways (one relocated) on a property with 123-foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart. lot C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive over 40 Eastfield. Those Commissioners that voted for this project, felt that, putting the applicant's wrong doing aside, the development fits the lot and that the lot has constraints that necessitate the CUP and Variances. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 3. After several lengthy discussions and deliberations, the Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Smith voted against the project stating that she feels the project does not meet the Site Plan Review criteria required for approvals of projects, including compliance with the General Plan. The approval includes standard finding of facts and conditions, including the following: a. provide pervious surface for the driveways located at 38 Eastfield Drive b. provide pervious surface for the motor court c. provide soundproofing for the mechanical equipment for the garage lift and the pool equipment area. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard for an air conditioning unit d. at key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City. e. landscaping to screen the light wells and back wall of the basement f. plant plants that would not result in a hedge and would not be higher than the ridge height of the house g• the area used for stock piling and the temporary construction driveway from Outrider Road shall be returned to their preconstruction contours and shall be certified by a third party engineer h. no further modifications to this project would be allowed and any future development would be subject to Planning Commission review i. construction of the future stable and corral would be subject to the requirements at the time of the request j. stake the east side property line and setback line at all times k. prior to obtaining a grading permit for 38 Eastfield for the driveways, obtain all necessary agreements and record the new easements and quit claim documents 1. there shall be no access from the garage basement to the house basement m. utility lines to be placed underground including removal of a pole on 38 Eastfield BACKGROUND 4. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 626 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at then existing size of 450 sq.ft. but was to be reconstructed. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1 %. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 5. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. 6. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration. At the same time the requirements for light and ventilation under the Los Angeles County Building Code have also changed. With those changes, the design for the basement changed, not only during the review of the Architectural Committee but also due to the City's and ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • building code new requirements. As a result of the City changing its requirements for basements, the RHCA changed theirs as well. 7. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With these changes, the shape of the proposed residence, the location of the basements wells and size of the porch were amended. 8. Prior to grading, the City approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 9. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. According to the applicant, the site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. A letter of request and explanation for the modification is attached. In addition, the applicant's architect stated that the architecture of the house calls for 3- foot thick walls and pockets towards which the windows and doors open into. The cut outs and the walls were not counted in the square footage of the enlarged house. 10. The ridge height of the residence will not change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate car lifts. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. 11. The basement is proposed to be the same size as the house and a basement under the garage is also proposed. The basement will be 5,732 square feet total. Due to concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners regarding noise, the architect submitted noise specifications for the lift in the garage. According to the manufacturer's report the equipment emits 80dB. According to a web search by the architect, 80dB is equivalent to a phone dial tone; whereas a normal conversation at 3' distance is 60-65 dB. The Planning Commission placed a condition that the noise emitted by the lift in the garage be no greater than a standard air conditioning unit. 12. At the Planning Commission meetings there were lengthy discussions regarding how the proposal differs from the originally approved project. Comparing the originally approved footprint of the house to the footprint of the proposed house, in general, the proposed house would increase by 1,020 square feet and basement by 2,753 square feet including the garage basement. The residence and basement are proposed to be 6-10 feet wider and approximately 10 feet longer than previously proposed, not including the areas around the cut outs. Therefore, measuring the line of the house on the plan, the ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • house is 828 square feet larger than previously approved, and the cut outs are approximately 192 square feet. A light well with a wall was originally approved by the Architectural Committee in proximity of the east side yard setback line. The light well was not required by the Building Code, and was removed. With the well being removed the applicant moved the house and the basement to be in line with the previously approved light well wall. 13. Recently the building official issued a stop work order on the property. Staff previously allowed the applicant to continue work within the parameters of the originally approved footprint of the basement. It has been observed that the applicant has gone beyond that approval. 14. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. The roadway easements are 30 feet wide along each frontage. Excluding the roadway easements, the lot is 1.16 acres in size. For development purposes, as measured by the City, the property is less than an acre or 39,664 square feet (0.91 acres). The property slopes away from Eastfield Drive, then flattens to a building pad and slopes down again towards Outrider Road. The buildable pad is 12,885 square feet and the proposed coverage on this pad would be 54.0%. 15. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach serving 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield Drive property. 16. After reviewing several different driveway proposals, the Traffic Engineer recommended and subsequently the Traffic Commission at their January 26, 2012 meeting approved the proposed driveway approaches. Traffic Engineer stated that the only way to serve 42 Eastfield with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reconstructed and it will only serve 40 Eastfield. If the CUP for the curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents for abandoning the old easements and establishing new easements, which will have to be signed and recorded between the three neighbors. Should the City Council receive and file this report, it is recommended that it also receive and file the request for a new driveway approach. 17. Several walls are necessary in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of the walls would be located in front yard setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. A Variance is also requested because the driveway approaches are less than 100 feet apart. ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 18. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 19. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 20. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 21. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have pervious pavers surface, which is not counted towards the total lot coverage. 22. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1%. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 23. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill, a larger pool, house, garage and basement. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 24. It is required that all utility lines be placed underground. 25. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 26. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage. The previous ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage of the pool does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in the rear of the house, as more grading would be required. The property owner explained that the smaller pool does not serve his family well. In addition, a letter from the applicant's engineer explaining the required variances and construction is enclosed. 27. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission considers whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 28. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 29. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD -COMPARISON TABLE ADDRESS 7 Outrider 45 Eastfield 41 Eastfield 39 Eastfield 44 Eastfield 42 Eastfield 38 Eastfield 36 Eastfield AVERAGE 40 Eastfield ZC NO. 824, 40 RESIDENCE 4,483* 5,204* 2,451 2,783 3,183* 1,854 2,088 5,649 3,462 . 4,075 approved 5,095 proposed Eastfield Drive LOT AREA** 51,940 119,370 36,720 35,950 38,610 34,660 42,470 36,330 49,506 50,960 • • SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 824, 40 Eastfield Drive • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear. 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-rnonth period. DRIVEWAY(s) AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PERVIOUS SURFACE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GUEST HOUSE AND FUTURE STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. Must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND APPROVALS AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AS EXISTED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION Single family residence with unauthorized detached garage & storage structure Residence 2355 sq.ft. Garage 400 sq.ft. Storage shed 310 sq.ft Stable 0 Equip.shed/service 51 sq.ft. Pool 442 sa.ft TOTAL 3558 sq.ft. 8.97% 24.16% 35.3% N/A N/A 32.3% AS APPROVED IN 2002 & AMENDED in 2005 due to a requirement for remediation of the slope below the residence Substantial addition, mixed use structure-garage/rec. room, guesthouse & future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Guesthouse Service/yd 3021sq.ft 596 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft 51 sq.ft 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. TOTAL 5456 sq.f 13.7% 29.7% 40.8% 54.2% (including stable and quest house) 784 cubic yards of cut 784 cubic yards of fill 23,980 sq.ft. 60.0% AS PROPOSED IN 2007 (not approved) New Residence, detached garage, & future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Servicelyd Basement TOTAL 4496 sq.ft. 651 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 3123 sa.ft. 6920 sq.ft. 17.5% of 39,664 sq.ft. net lot area 34.9% 44.2% of 13,619 sq.ft pad 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 1,182 cubic yards cut 1,182 cubic yards fill, including basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1 % APPROVED IN 2007 New single family residence, attached garage w/basement and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL Driveway 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways TOTAL 4075 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2979 sa.ft. 6448 sq.ft 2304 sq.ft. 2044 sq.ft. 2125 sq.ft. 465 sa.ft. 6,938 sq.ft. 6,316 s.f. or 16.2% 13,254 s.f. or 33.4% 12,885 s.f. or 40%; W/O 407 s.f. porch. 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 833 cubic yards cut 833 cubic yards fill, plus export of dirt from basement 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1 % CURENTLY REQUESTED (APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) (Sept 2012) New single family residence, attached garage w/basement, pool and future stable Residence 5095 sq.ft. Garage 698 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Pool 750 sq.ft. Equip.shed 51 sq.ft. Cov. Porch 646 sq.ft. Entryway 136 sq.ft. Service/yd 96 sq.ft. Basement 5732 sa.ft. TOTAL 7922 sq.ft. Primary Driveway 563 sq.ft. 2nd drwy 2406 sq.ft. Pool deck 842 sq.ft. Walkways 85 sa.ft. TOTAL 3,896 sq.ft. Grass Pavers 3,008 sq.ft. 7,922 sq.ft. or 19.97% 11,818 sq.ft. or 29.8% (coverage is less due to the proposed use of grass pavers) 12,885 s.f. bldg pad; 6,963 sq.ft. or 54.0% (excl. 509 sq.ft. porch) 3,961 sq.ft. pad. 12.2% 4383 c.y. cut incl. 3390 c.y. from basement; 868 c.y. fill Export 3,390 from bsmnt 38 Eastfield - cut 180.c.y. fill 305 c.y.; (Dirt balanced from 40 Eastfield) 19,682 sq.ft. or 49.6% (including future stable area) Page 1 of 2 building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property over neighbors property N/A Planning Commission condition N/A Planning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission review Planning Commission review Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property; to be reconfigured Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Page 2 of 2 July 30, 2012 Planning Dept. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Yolanta Swartz, Planning Director Subject: Revised applications for 40 Eastfield, R.H. Yolanta: This letter will serve to reply to your July 6, 2012, inquiry regarding the basis for the application for residence structural increase at the above -referenced property. We are revising the grading plan and applications as you have requested to clarify some of the parameters as we have discussed. We have changed the following items for your review and approval: Initially, the basement was increased in size and depth due to the site geological conditions. . This increased size was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur. This also eliminated the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased from 11 feet to 14 feet due to the lower depth of the bedrock. The basement is not encroaching in the sideyard setbacks, and essentially expanded in an east -west direction, not towards either adjoining neighbor. The basement has been extended to include being under the three car garage. This basement will allow two car lifts to be installed to provide car storage below the garage in the basement which allows the following: With the lift in the raised position, a car will enter the garage, the lift will lower, the ceiling of the lift will then be level with the garage floor, and another car can be garaged on this ceiling of the lift. This operation will be reversed to drive the two cars out of this one car space. Additionally, the garage is proposed to be increased approximately 100 sq. ft. due to a modified design of the garage with three 9 foot wide garage doors that were previously designed at 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide garage doors would have resulted in a limited useful garage when accounting for wall thickness and the utility of accommodating full size vehicles and SUVs. The proposed structural lot coverage does not exceed the guideline of 35%. Incidentally, the Tonsich's lot is about 1.5 acres (about 62,000 sq. feet) gross and they are requesting about a 5,100 square foot house (which is consistent with similar properties at 36 Eastfield and 66 r .: Fastfield recently offered for sale that exceed 5,000 square feet on lots of approximately 45,000 and 60,000 square feet respectively). Furthermore, the design of the house is early California Ranchero, which requires 18 to 24 inch thick walls with recessed windows and doors. This style of architecture is adversely penalized when square footage is calculated to the exterior of the walls. In certain situations the square footage of the house is determined by excluding the area of the exterior walls, the area of the stairs/ elevators and chimneys which would reduce the floor area. Once these areas are excluded, the net floor area is quite close to the approved square footage area. Therefore, the application seeks to preserve the room sizes and layout as initially designed with a slightly larger gross square footage necessitated by unforeseen geological conditions, and to allow for the residence structure to encompass the entire area of the slightly increased foundational walls. The main floor of the house and the ridge height have remained the same as shown on the approved plan. Another item that has changed is the pool has been increased from 450 sq. feet to 750 square feet. Due to the pool being in the front yard and proposing a larger pool than the original legal nonconforming pool in the front yard requires us to apply for an additional variance. The pool will not be visible from any adjacent street. We will be submitting drawings and the required calculated areas for your review and approval by August 1, 2012 for the Planning Commission field trip on August 14, 2012. If you need more information or have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, President RESOLUTION NO. 2012-17 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS, WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review to modify previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 745 for grading and construction of a single family residence. The proposed modification entails request for additional grading and export of dirt, a larger house and garage, larger basement and larger swimming pool. In addition, the applicant requests Variances for exceedance of the disturbed area, to locate the pool in the front yard and to construct higher than allowed walls in the front yard setback along the driveways, as well as a Conditional Use permit to construct two off site driveways at 38 Eastfield to serve the property at 42 Eastfield over subject property. Section 2. The previous approval consisted of grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, and construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The disturbance of the lot was approved at 39.1 %. The then existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain, but were to be refurbished. The revised project calls for: A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of a 5,095 - square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) Resolution No. 2012-17 1 iv. construction of over 3 foot high walls along the drill/Pays. B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 % ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height. iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot iv. to locate two driveways (one relocated) on a property with 123 foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart. C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approaches at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved the driveway approaches in January 2012. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 includes a condition on the property that any further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Following Planning Commission's decision, the City Council on October 8, 2007 took this case under jurisdiction. The Council expressed concerns over the design and appearance of the proposed basement, the visibility of the walls from Outrider Road, and the deck above the basement. Council members were concerned that the deck gives a two-story appearance to the structure. However, it was opinioned that the City has no jurisdiction over the design or architecture of a structure. Section 4. During the RHCA review process of the project in 2007, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence and the location of the basement wells were modified. Section 5. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings. At the meetings concerns were expressed by the neighbor at 38 Eastfield regarding potential noise from the elevator shaft in the garage, location of the proposed pilasters, shape of the driveway approaches, surface of the proposed driveways and easements. The Planning Commission considered their concerns in their decision and provided conditions that pervious material be used and that all required easements and quit claims of old easements be obtained prior to construction of the driveways. The property owners were also informed that both easements and pilaster are not under the jurisdiction of the City, but the RHCA. Section 6. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application in the field on August 14 and at its regular meeting on August 21, 2012. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and was in attendance together with his representatives. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 and 42 Eastfield, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Resolution No. 2012-17 • • Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, including grading on the adjacent property for the new driveways and construction of a larger than previously approved residence, basement and garage the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements and no variances are required for setbacks. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,818 square feet which equals 29.8% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways located at 38 Eastfield, which will aid in storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, 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 permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. Following the original approval, geology and soils studies were prepared. The increased size of the basement was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur, and to eliminate the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased due to the depth of the bedrock. With the increase in the basement, the applicant proposes larger house. D. 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 new residences in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original Resolution No. 2012-17 residence. The construction an attached garage replaces previikly existed illegal detached garage. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. F. The development plan will introduce drought -tolerant 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. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. H. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and in the same zone. Section 17.16.070 of the Municipal Code provides that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The topographic nature of the subject property is such that construction of the driveway adjacent to the home will require a fill slope that complies with other applicable development standards. While the fill slope in the area of the driveway will only be two feet thick on average, both the cut and fill areas are counted in the disturbed area calculation. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. Due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, and the size of the lot, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not Resolution No. 2012-17 4 i l b included in the net lotarea liPculations, therefore considerably di inishing the size of the lot. In addition the driveway serving the adjacent property is included in the disturbed area of the lot, therefore adding to the disturbance of the lot. Construction of the fill slope will increase the disturbed area on the site from its current 40% of the net lot area to approximately 49.6%, which includes the future stable. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of better -designed driveway because the topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.170. 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. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Section 10 Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it states that walls not to exceed 3-feet, under certain circumstances, may be located in setbacks. The applicants request Variance to allow retaining walls to be located in the 50-foot required front yard setback, and the walls would exceed 2 l foot average height. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that the access to the property is gained through another property and also serves a third property to the east. The existing driveway approach located at 38 Eastfield crosses the property line at 40 Eastfield and then separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and one serving 42 Eastfield. This creates a dangerous situation when two cars are in the driveway at the same time. In addition the visibility is very poor at the intersection of the two driveways. The applicants propose to correct this situation by proposing to construct two separate driveways, which require retaining walls. No portion of the retaining walls would be higher than 5 feet. The walls are also necessary for erosion control to adequately contain the slopes above and between the driveways. Resolution No. 2012-17 5 B. The variancefinecessary for the preservation ar enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. Due to the topography of the lots, many of the homes in the area are developed with retaining walls along their front yards. The construction of the walls is intended to alleviate the ongoing problem of a joint driveway and provide a permanent solution. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The three property owners whose properties are currently affected by the existing situation and will be affected by this proposal are in agreement. No neighbors came forth in opposition to the walls. The proposed walls will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots dictate grading requirements where retaining walls are required in the front yard, and which on the average exceed 2 l feet. The requested encroachment is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. 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, as there are several properties with retaining walls along their driveways in the front yard. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.150. F. 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. Section 11. Section 17.16.200(I) prohibits the construction of a swimming pool or other structures in the front yard area of a lot, except where a Variance is approved. The applicants are requesting to construct a 750 square foot swimming pool with a spa in the front yard, in the same location as an existing pool. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The proposed pool will be located in the same area of the front yard as previously existed pool, except that it would be larger. The location of the residence and the topographical features of the lot prevent the pool to be located in a different area. The building pad was Resolution No. 2012-17 6 graded in a manner that the construction of a pool and outdoor ruing amenities lend itself to the front location. The topography of the lot together with the fact that the pad has been already created, cause difficulty in constructing the new improvements elsewhere on the property. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the new construction elsewhere on the property. The lot is unique in that it is steep behind the residence and any different configuration for a pool on the lot would require additional grading. The pool would be located in an area least obtrusive to adjacent properties and in the same location as the existing pool. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, 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, is located in an area of an existing pool and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed construction will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. The proposed pool and spa will not encroach into the existing or potentially future equestrian uses on the property. A suitable area for a future stable and corral has been set aside. 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. Section 12. Section 17.16.040(A)(1) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of more than one driveway, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting permission to build a new driveway approach, relocate an existing approach and abandon that portion of the existing approach that will no longer be used for a driveway. Both driveways would be located on 38 Eastfield Drive property and will serve 40 Eastfield and 42 Eastfield properties. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the additional driveway and relocation of the existing driveway would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use with a CUP. The area proposed for the driveways would require small amount of grading. With this application an existing dangerous situation would be corrected. Resolution No. 2012-17 B. The nature, IPndition, and development of a cent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the driveways will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed use will be similar to the existing situation, but improved from a vehicular safety standpoint. The area of the existing driveways will be improved as new surface, which will aid in storm water management will be placed on the driveways and therefore the area will be aesthetically enhanced. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the driveways are not structures and will enhance the area and provide for safe ingress and egress for three separate properties. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use under the Municipal Code. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed project and approved it. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 13. Section 17.16.040(A)(1) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of more than one driveway, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, Section 17.16.210 (A)(1) requires that if more than one driveway is requested the driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 100 feet distance and be located on property with at least 200 foot frontage on a street. A Variance may be requested from these requirements. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Variance for construction of the additional driveway and relocation of the existing driveway would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community where more than one driveways are located on a property with less than 200 feet frontage and are less than 100 feet apart. The property is unique in that the access to the property is gained through another property and also serves a third property to the east. The existing driveway approach located at 38 Eastfield crosses the property line at 40 Eastfield and then separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and one serving 42 Eastfield. This creates a dangerous situation when two cars are in the driveway at the same time. In addition the visibility is very poor at the intersection of the two driveways. The applicants propose to correct this situation by proposing to construct two separate driveways. The nature of the topography on lots at 40 and 42 Eastfield is that a driveway may not be constructed on those lots and there already exist two driveways at 38 Eastfield, which are less than 100 feet apart. This condition has existed with the development of 38, 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive properties in the 1950's. The area proposed for the driveways would require small amount of grading. With this application an existing dangerous situation would be corrected. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses; buildings, and structures have been considered, and the driveways will not adversely affect or be materially Resolution No. 2012-17 8 detrimental to these adjacenTuses, buildings, or structures beca Pel the proposed use will be similar to the existing situation, but improved from a vehicular safety standpoint. The area of the existing driveways will be improved as new surface, which will aid in storm water management will be placed on the driveways and therefore the area will be aesthetically enhanced. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed driveways and recommended approval, as it is the best situation given the topography and configurations of those lots. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the driveways are not structures and will enhance the area and provide for safe ingress and egress for three separate properties. D. The proposed Variance complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use under the Municipal Code. The Traffic Engineer and Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed project and approved it. E. The proposed Variance is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Modified Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 824 with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the'effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements. of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the City Planning Department dated August 3, 2012 (site plan) and July 17, 2012 (floor plan). The size of the basement, including garage basement shall not be greater than the size of the house and garage. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. E. This project including all hardscape shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of Resolution No. 2012-17 9 the proposed structure. Andeviations to this project that theeHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project and additional evaluation. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 19.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes 450 sq.ft. future stable. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,818 square feet or 29.8 % in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, (approximately 3,008 square feet in total) shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturers specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. J. Those portions of the new driveways, which are to be located on 38 Eastfield Drive shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturers specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Code. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,682 square feet or 49.6% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable and corral pad. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,885 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 54.0%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading shall not exceed 5,251 cubic yards of dirt total to include 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 cubic yards from the basement and 868 cubic yards of fill. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer at the applicant's expense. The City shall select the engineer. Resolution No. 2012-17 P. The proposedtaining wall, which would replace n existing retaining wall located to the south of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall be at 1079 elevation. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. The basement shall not exceed 14 feet in depth and the garage basement may not exceed 16 feet in depth. S. At key points throughout the construction, as determined by the City Manager, the foundation, footprint, ridgeline and grading shall be certified by a third party certified civil engineer. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this requirement. T. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 750 square feet as measured along the water line of the structures. U. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. V. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. 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/!ox/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. W. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. X. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound of the mechanical equipment shall not exceed that which is standard noise for an air conditioning. Y. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this resolution. The Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Resolution No. 2012-17 11 Construction of a stable, i*quested, shall be subject to the *icipal Code requirements at the time of the request. Z. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, shall be a minimum of 5 gallon in size. AA. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas, staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. AB. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AC. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AD. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2011 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Resolution No. 2012-17 12 E AG. During and aftPconstruction, all parking shall take ace on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AH. 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. AI. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AJ. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AK. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AL. The lower portion of the lot, utilized as staging and stock piling of dirt shall be returned to its pre -construction contours and the restoration shall be certified by a third party civil engineer. AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. AN. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground and the pole located at 38 Eastfield serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed. AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AP. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. Resolution No. 2012-17 13 • • AT. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. JL F IE‘ICFRMAN ATTEST: litott HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2012-17 14 Og • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2012-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS, WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 18, 2012 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Chelf, Henke, Mirsch and Chairman Pieper. NOES: Commissioner Smith. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2012-17 15 �•R • • Page 1 of 1 Subj: Power unit DB Date: 8/22/2012 9:00:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: To: Hi Doug, We use several motors for the PhantomPark and which one depends on the lift itself. If it's a telescopic design or if the lift has more then 12' of travel, then we use a l0hp motor. Standard models use a 5HP motor. The motors put out 80 DB. They're actually very quiet, not to mention that they're installed in the basement or even in a machine room in the lower level. Once you have drawings for our engineers to review, we'll provide you with a formal detailed quote and conceptual drawings written specifically for this application. If you need anything else, please feel free to call me any time. Thanks again Doug. We look forward to the possibilities of working with you. Sincerely, Brad Davies AMERICAN Custom Lifts M RE 760.745 5438 local 760.745.6200 fax brad(a)aclift: corn. 158 E. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA. 92025 Tuesday. Aut'ust 28. 2012 AOL: CONSTRUCTIONDM Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart • Page 1 of 3 ABOUT PRODUCTS ONLINE CATALOG NEWSLETTER How- o CONTACT SEARCH OUR SIIE FIND: SUBMIT SIGN UP FOR SOUNDBIIES NAME: EMAIL: SUBMIT ,. oLI,dYJyiile .a i%J'ee 6s dl, .il �,JllRiIIpLJ;,�,lIM1oGLW':.Id�G;�AiSS IJr L,��„ ✓i��. . n.r ryl ,dlilSJalEsi.,,, Li .,..141,, W: tk I ItlIAIn nl;li' Home > Resources > How-To's > Loudness !l i Checkout I My Account I Help Here are some interesting numbers, collected from a variety of sources, that help one to understand the volume levels of various sources and how they can affect our hearing. Environmental Noise Weakest sound heard Whisper Quiet Library at 6' Normal conversation at 3' Telephone dial tone City Traffic (inside car) Train whistle at 500', Truck Traffic Jackhammer at 50' Subway train at 200' •;1r, Hand Drill Power mower at 3' Snowmobile, Motorcycle Power saw at 3' Sandblasting, Loud Rock Concert Pneumatic riveter at 4' o c• Jet engine at 100' 12 Gauge Shotgun Blast Death of hearing tissue Loudest sound possible 0dB 30dB 60-65dB 80dB 85dB 90dB 95dB 95dB 1.. 98dB 107dB 100dB 110dB 115dB 125dB 140dB 165dB 180dB 194dB OSHA Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure Hours per day 8 6 4 3 2 Sound level 90dB 92dB 95dB 97dB 100dB httn•//www.ecaudia.com/resources/howtos/loudness html R/?R/?O17 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Page 2 of 3 • 1.5 .5 .25 or less NIOSH Hours per day 8 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 .5 .25 or Tess 0 102dB 105dB 110dB 115dB Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure Sound level 85dBA 86dBA 88dBA 89dBA 90dBA 92dBA 94dBA 97dBA 100dBA 112dBA Perceptions of Increases in Decibel Level Imperceptible Change Barely Perceptible Change Clearly Noticeable Change About Twice as Loud About Four Times as Loud Sound Levels of Music Normal piano practice Fortissimo Singer, 3' Chamber music, small auditorium Piano Fortissimo Violin Cello Oboe Flute Piccolo Clarinet French horn Trombone Tympani & bass drum Walkman on 5/10 Symphonic music peak 1dB 3dB 5dB 10dB 20dB 60 -70dB 70dB 75 - 85dB 84 - 103dB 82 - 92dB 85 -111 d B 95-112dB 92 -103dB 90 -106dB 85 - 114dB 90 - 106dB 85 - 114dB 106dB 94dB 120 - 137dB httn://www.Qcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness html 13/2R/2012 Decibel (Loudness) ComnarisonChart • Page 3 of 3 Amplifier, rock, 4-6' Rock music peak 120dB 150dB 1 NOTES: • One-third of the total power of a 75-picce orchestra comes from the bass drum. • High frequency sounds of 2-4,000 Hz arc the most damaging. The uppermost octave of the piccolo is 2.048-4,096 Hz. • Aging causes gradual hearing loss, mostly in the high frequencies. • Speech reception is not seriously impaired until there is about 30 dB Toss, by that time severe damage may have occurred. • Hypertension and various psychological difficulties can be related to noise exposure • The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4-43%, in rock musicians 13-30%. • Recent NIOSH studies of sound levels from weapons fires have shown that they may range from a low of 144 dB SPL for small caliber weapons such as a 0.22 caliber rifle to as high as a 172 dB SPL for a 0.357 caliber revolver. Double ear protection is recommended for shooters, combining soft, insertable car plugs and extemal ear muffs. Statistics for the Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart were taken from a study by Marshall Chasin , M.Sc., Aud(C), FAAA, Centre for Human Performance & Health, Ontario, Canada. There were some conflicting readings and, in many cases, authors did not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually playing. In general, when there were several readings, the higher one was chosen. Additional Resources The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) - http://www. cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noise/ ^.Inet ic —Information and help for those with tinnitus }ier:r ??�irmt�r,^ — The Hearing Conservation Workshop — Hearing Education and Awareness for Rockers p,n! _r;n;ir+i i! r';itu;:'s . ! ;;ti>rr — for musicians and music lovers tun it..lp D_,r �,ct' — from the American Academy of Audiology ! iEleti Ic: Youi —from the American Speech -Language -Hearing Association 1•.__. n::r.c� ,:,at+>iric hr'•:x',rtn i::r:�. i,i y,„nl;: rt:r.,tlrrG,'ur:, : rl•,nf' —report from Australian Hearing, National Acoustic Laboratories Huai t .t Rirs,; ;,r,: i pyur;r I_r• t"•i,'I '��. t', il: (ric; il;;l+ r :Ipts:r tC' — from the American Academy of Audiology .<• — from the National Hearing Conservation Association rt - All contents © 2007 by Galen Carol Audio San Antonio, Texas USA and may not be copied or - • educed without permission. Website by Stylefish. �+*.. /Altmann, rrr•aitriin rnrn/rPcmirrP/i'inwtnc/1niidnecs html R/7R/7O1 Ro&a, qeeed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 9/18/12 Agenda Item: 6A TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JULY 5, 2012 AUGUST 2, 2012 REOUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION 1. The applicant Mr. Nicholas Tonsich requests to modify previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745. The application entails request for modification as well as new requests as follows: A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) iv. construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways. B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 % ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height. • • iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot iv. to locate two driveways (one relocated) on a property with 123 foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart. C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approaches at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved the driveway approach in January 2012. 2. The Planning Commission visited the site on August 14, 2012 and considered the application at its regular meeting on August 18, 2012. After discussion and deliberation, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval of the case with standard finding of facts and conditions and including as follows: a. provide pervious surface for the driveways located at 38 Eastfield Drive b. provide pervious surface for the motor court c. provide sound proofing for the mechanical equipment for the garage lift and the pool equipment area and provide manufacturer's specifications for the lift d. certify the roof height of the house and garage before the house is completed. Staff proposed to obtain a third party certification at the expense of the applicant by an engineer selected by the City to certify grading and roof height. e. landscaping to screen the light wells and back wall of the basement f. plant plants that would not result in a hedge and when mature would not be higher than the ridge height of the house. At planting shrubs and trees, if any, to be at least 5 gallon size g• the area used for stock piling and the temporary construction driveway from Outrider Road shall be returned to their preconstruction contours and shall be certified by a third party engineer f. no further modifications to this project would be allowed and any future development would be subject to Planning Commission review g• construction of the future stable and corral would be subject to the requirements at the time of the request h. stake the east side property line and setback line at all times i. prior to obtaining grading permit for 38 Eastfield for the driveways, obtain all necessary agreements and record the new easements and quit claim documents j. there shall be no access from the garage basement to the house basement RECOMMENDATION 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and consider the enclosed resolution for adoption or provide other direction to staff. BACKGROUND 4. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 626 square feet • s of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at then current size of 450 sq.ft., but remodeled. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1%. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 5. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. 6. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence, the location of the basements wells were slightly changed, which staff approved over-the- counter. 7. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration. At the same time the requirements for light and ventilation under the Los Angeles County Building Code also have changed. With those changes, the design for the basement changed, not only during the review of the Architectural Committee but also due to the City's and building code new requirements. 8. Prior to grading, staff approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 9. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. The site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. The applicant requests to construct a larger basement, larger house and a larger pool. A letter of request and explanation is attached. 10. The ridge height of the residence will not change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate the car lifts. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. 11. The applicant has corrected the basement plans and is showing that the size of the basement will be the same as the size of the house and garage, at 5,793 square feet. The architect has submitted noise specifications for the lift in the garage. According to the • manufacturer's report the equipment emits 80dB, which is equivalent to a phone dial tone. According to the literature a normal conversation at 3' distance is 60-65 dB. 12. At the August meetings, there was discussion regarding how the proposal differs from the originally approved size of the house. Comparing the originally approved footprint of the house to the footprint of the proposed house several changes were made, and the foundation and basement walls are currently under construction. As stated by the applicant, the entire rear footprint of the house was enlarged by 5 feet to the north and north east. In addition the proposed plan shows the house located at the side setback line, whereas the previously approved plan shows the house 5 feet away from the side setback line. In general the proposed house and basement would be 6-10 feet wider and approximately 10 feet longer than previously proposed, not including the areas around the cut outs. Approximately 200 square feet are in the wall cut outs. The garage location has not changed, but the garage is proposed to be increased by 98 square feet. A basement under the garage is also proposed. 13. The architect has also clarified to staff that the size of the roof will not increase. As the walls have been pushed out the loggia got narrower but the roof over the house and loggia is the same. In addition, the height of the roof will not change, and the house does not encroach into any setbacks. 14. Recently the building official issued a stop work order on the property. Staff previously allowed the applicant to continue work within the parameters of the originally approved footprint of the basement. It has been observed that the applicant has gone beyond that approval. 15. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. The roadway easements are 30 feet wide along each frontage. Excluding the roadway easements, the lot is 1.16 acres in size. For development purposes the property is less than an acre or 39,664 square feet (0.91 acres). The property slopes away from Eastfield Drive, then flattens to a building pad and slopes down again towards Outrider Road. The buildable pad is 12,885 square feet and the proposed coverage on this pad would be 54.0%. 16. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. After reviewing several different driveway proposals it was established and approved by the Traffic Engineer and subsequently by the Traffic Commission, that the only way to serve 42 Eastfield with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The Traffic Commission approved the third driveway approach on 38 Eastfield at their January 26, 2012 meeting. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reduced in width. If the CUP for a third curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 17. Several walls need to be constructed in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of s • the walls would be located in front setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. 18. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE, 19. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 20. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 21. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas / decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have pervious pavers surface, which is not counted towards the total lot coverage. 22. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1%. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 23. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill, a larger pool, house, garage and basement. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 24. It is required that all utility lines be placed underground. 25. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 26. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage as well as the • s neighboring lot. The previous approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in the rear of the house, as more grading would be required. The property owner explained that the smaller pool does not serve his family well. In addition, a letter from the applicant's engineer explaining the required variances and construction is enclosed. 27. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 28. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 29. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD —COMPARISON TABLE ADDRESS 7 Outrider 45 Eastfield 41 Eastfield 39 Eastfield 44 Eastfield 42 Eastfield 38 Eastfield 36 Eastfield AVERAGE 40 Eastfield RESIDENCE LOT AREA** 4,483* 51,940 5,204* 119,370 2,451 36,720 2,783 35,950 3,183* 38,610 1,854 34,660 2,088 42,470 5,649 136,330 3,462 149,506 4,075 approved 150,960 5,095 proposed • • SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: • • 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance July 30, 2012 Planning Dept. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Yolanta Swartz, Planning Director Subject: Revised applications for 40 Eastfield, R.H. Yolanta: This letter will serve to reply to your July 6, 2012, inquiry regarding the basis for the application for residence structural increase at the above -referenced property. We are revising the grading plan and applications as you have requested to clarify some of the parameters as we have discussed. We have changed the following items for your review and approval: Initially, the basement was increased in size and depth due to the site geological conditions. . This increased size was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur. This also eliminated the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased from 11 feet to 14 feet due to the lower depth of the bedrock. The basement is not encroaching in the sideyard setbacks, and essentially expanded in an east -west direction, not towards either adjoining neighbor. The basement has been extended to include being under the three car garage. This basement will allow two car lifts to be installed to provide car storage below the garage in the basement which allows the following: With the lift in the raised position, a car will enter the garage, the lift will lower, the ceiling of the lift will then be level with the garage floor, and another car can be garaged on this ceiling of the lift. This operation will be reversed to drive the two cars out of this one car space. Additionally, the garage is proposed to be increased approximately 100 sq. ft. due to a modified design of the garage with three 9 foot wide garage doors that were previously designed at 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide garage doors would have resulted in a limited useful garage when accounting for wall thickness and the utility of accommodating full size vehicles and SUVs. The proposed structural lot coverage does not exceed the guideline of 35%. Incidentally, the Tonsich's lot is about 1.5 acres (about 62,000 sq. feet) gross and they are requesting about a 5,100 square foot house (which is consistent with similar properties at 36 Eastfield and 66 .,c,i ,` ; ,..f 90:17 (el Pi()) E ;k (31:1) 0 Eastfield recently offered for sale that exceed 5,000 square feet on lots of approximately 45,000 and 60,000 square feet respectively). Furthermore, the design of the house is early California Ranchero, which requires 18 to 24 inch thick walls with recessed windows and doors. This style of architecture is adversely penalized when square footage is calculated to the exterior of the walls. In certain situations the square footage of the house is determined by excluding the area of the exterior walls, the area of the stairs/ elevators and chimneys which would reduce the floor area. Once these areas are excluded, the net floor area is quite close to the approved square footage area. Therefore, the application seeks to preserve the room sizes and layout as initially designed with a slightly larger gross square footage necessitated by unforeseen geological conditions, and to allow for the residence structure to encompass the entire area of the slightly increased foundational walls. The main floor of the house and the ridge height have remained the same as shown on the approved plan. Another item that has changed is the pool has been increased from 450 sq. feet to 750 square feet. Due to the pool being in the front yard and proposing a larger pool than the original legal nonconforming pool in the front yard requires us to apply for an additional variance. The pool will not be visible from any adjacent street. We will be submitting drawings and the required calculated areas for your review and approval by August 1, 2012 for the Planning Commission field trip on August 14, 2012. If you need more information or have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, President %r-,`I.'„j 14,.!'i, .!lai i`,v .. !.:1.d: I.'"-l-l!ii C.(I; ', ,., _;In) J'i_ .,`,_'. t,.•1 i ',' S''5 .,;;ri i1 • • Page 1 of 1 Subj: Power unit DB Date: 8/22/2012 9:00:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time From: I:__. To: Hi Doug, We use several motors for the PhantomPark and which one depends on the lift itself. If it's a telescopic design or if the lift has more then 12' of travel, then we use a l0hp motor. Standard models use a 5HP motor. The motors put out 80 DB. They're actually very quiet, not to mention that they're installed in the basement or even in a machine room in the lower level. Once you have drawings for our engineers to review, we'll provide you with a formal detailed quote and conceptual drawings written specifically for this application. If you need anything else, please feel free to call me any time. Thanks again Doug. We look forward to the possibilities of working with you. Sincerely, Brad Davies AMERICAN Custom Lifts a3 PIE ME eri 760.745.5438 local 760.745.6200 fax brad(c�aclifts. com 158 E. Grand Ave. Escondido, CA. 92025 Tuesday. August 28. 2012 AOL: CONSTRUCTIONDM Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart • Page 1 of 3 L[N tROL U 0 I 0 ONLINE CATALOG How -To CONTACT SEARCH OUR SITE FIND: SUBMIT SIGN UP FOR SOUNOBIIES, NAME: EMAIL: SUBMIT M.mka,Lwaio..A.*'�YJi liwz'YJzW6t1LfiAii .iA4r. •isksueth irW4ur .wws+wttibkoc 4,15440 Home > Resources > How-To's > Loudness Checkout 1 My Account 1 Help Here are some interesting numbers, collected from a variety of sources, that help one to understand the volume levels of various sources and how they can affect our hearing. Environmental Noise Weakest sound heard Whisper Quiet Library at 6' Normal conversation at 3' Telephone dial tone City Traffic (inside car) Train whistle at 500', Truck Traffic Jackhammer at 50' Subway train at 200' Hand Drill Power mower at 3' Snowmobile, Motorcycle Power saw at 3' Sandblasting, Loud Rock Concert Pneumatic riveter at 4' Jet engine at 100' 12 Gauge Shotgun Blast Death of hearing tissue Loudest sound possible 0dB 30dB 60-65dB 80dB 85dB 90dB 95dB 95dB 98dB 107dB 100dB 110dB 115dB 125dB 140dB 165dB 180dB 194dB OSHA Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure Hours per day 8 6 4 3 2 Sound level 90dB 92dB 95dB 97dB 100dB httn://www.iicaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html 8/213/2O12 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Page 2 of 3 - • 1.5 1 .5 .25 or less 102dB 105dB 110dB 115dB NIOSH Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure Hours per day 8 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 .5 .25 or Tess 0 Sound level 85dBA 86dBA 88dBA 89dBA 90dBA 92dBA 94dBA 97dBA 100dBA 112dBA Perceptions of Increases in Decibel Level Imperceptible Change II 1dB Barely Perceptible Change 11 3dB Clearly Noticeable Change 5dB About Twice as Loud II 10dB About Four Times as Loud 11 20dB Sound Levels of Music Normal piano practice Fortissimo Singer, 3' Chamber music, small auditorium Piano Fortissimo Violin Cello Oboe Flute Piccolo Clarinet French horn Trombone Tympani & bass drum Walkman on 5/10 Symphonic music peak 60 -70dB 70dB 75 - 85d8 84 -103dB 82 - 92dB 85-111dB 95-112dB 92 -103dB 90 -106dB 85 - 114dB 90 -106dB 85 -114dB 106dB 94dB 120 - 137dB httn://www.Qcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html R/28/2012 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Page 3 of 3 • • Amplifier, rock, 4-6' Rock music peak 120dB 150dB NOTES: • One-third of the total power of a 75-piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. • High frequency sounds of 2-4,000 Hz are the most damaging. The uppermost octave of the piccolo is 2.048-4,096 Hz. • Aging causes gradual hearing loss, mostly in the high frequencies. • Speech reception is not seriously impaired until there is about 30 dB loss; by that time severe damage may have occurred. • Hypertension and various psychological difficulties can be related to noise exposure. • The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4-43%, in rock musicians 13-30%. • Recent NIOSH studies of sound levels from weapons fires have shown that they may range from a low of 144 dB SPL for small caliber weapons such as a 0.22 caliber rifle to as high as a 172 dB SPL for a 0.357 caliber revolver. Double ear protection is recommended for shooters, combining soft, insertable car plugs and external ear muffs. Statistics for the Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart were taken from a study by Marshall Chasin , M.Sc., Aud(C), FAAA, Centre for Human Performance & Health, Ontario, Canada. There were some conflicting readings and, in many cases, authors did not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually playing. In general, when there were several readings, the higher one was chosen. Additional Resources The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) - http://www.cdc.goviniosh/top4cs/noise/ American Tinnitus Association — Information and help for those with tinnitus Hear Tomorrow —The Hearing Conservation Workshop H_E.A.R. — Hearing Education and Awareness for Rockers American Tnnnttus Association — for musicians and music lovers Turn It to the Lett — from the American Academy of Audiology Listen to Youi pugs. — from the American Speech -Language -Hearing Association Singe L.isteningjs u2osuie to ir?isurrr noisec_3usinq henrinq_Iossin.youiq Alrstraliins%jpnfr — report from Australian Hearing, National Acoustic Laboratories Hearing Aids awl Music- Interview with Maisiiall_Chasin_, AuP — from the American Academy of Audiology Safe Listening Resource —from the National Hearing Conservation Association OSHA NoiGe - All contents © 2007 by Galen Carol Audio San Antonio, Texas USA and may not be copied or reproduced without permission. Website by Stylefish. httny//www.ucaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html R/2R/2017. • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2012-17 110 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS, WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review to modify previously approved project in Zoning Case No. 745 for grading and construction of a single family residence. The proposed modification entails request for additional grading and export of dirt, a larger house and garage, larger basement and larger swimming pool. In addition, the applicant requests Variances for exceedance of the disturbed area, to locate the pool in the front yard and to construct higher than allowed walls in the front yard setback along the driveways, as well as a Conditional Use permit to construct two off site driveways at 38 Eastfield to serve the property at 42 Eastfield over subject property. Section 2. The previous approval consisted of grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, and construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The disturbance of the lot was approved at 39.1%. The then existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment was to remain, but were to be refurbished. The revised project calls for:. A. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming pool including a spa iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) Resolution No. 2012-17 iv. construction f"over 3 foot high walls along the drieways. B. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 % ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height. iii. construct a 750 sq.ft. swimming pool including spa in the front yard of the lot iv. to locate two driveways (one relocated) on a property with 123 foot frontage, and which are less than 100 feet apart. C. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct additional driveway approaches at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved the driveway approaches in January 2012. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 includes a condition on the property that any further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Following Planning Commission's decision, the City Council on October 8, 2007 took this case under jurisdiction. The Council expressed concerns over the design and appearance of the proposed basement, the visibility of the walls from Outrider Road, and the deck above the basement. Council members were concerned that the deck gives a two-story appearance to the structure. However, it was opinioned that the City has no jurisdiction over the design or architecture of a structure. Section 4. During the RHCA review process of the project in 2007, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence and the location of the basement wells were modified. Section 5. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings. At the meetings concerns were expressed by the neighbor at 38 Eastfield regarding potential noise from the elevator shaft in the garage, location of the proposed pilasters, shape of the driveway approaches, surface of the proposed driveways and easements. The Planning Commission considered their concerns in their decision and provided conditions that pervious material be used and that all required easements and quit claims of old easements be obtained prior to construction of the driveways. The property owners were also informed that both easements and pilaster are not under the jurisdiction of the City, but the RHCA. Section 6. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application in the field on August 14 and at its regular meeting on August 21, 2012. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and was in attendance together with his representatives. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 and 42 Eastfield, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Resolution No. 2012-17 z� • • Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for greater grading, including grading on the adjacent property for the new driveways and construction of a larger than previously approved residence, basement and garage the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback requirements and no variances are required for setbacks. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. The size of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 11,818 square feet which equals 29.8% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and the driveways located at 38 Eastfield, which will aid in storm water management. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, 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 permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. Following the original approval, geology and soils studies were prepared. The increased size of the basement was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur, and to eliminate the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased due to the depth of the bedrock. With the increase in the basement, the applicant proposes larger house. D. 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 new residences in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original Resolution No. 2012-17 3 13 residence. The construction an attached garage replaces previsly existed illegal detached garage. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. F. The development plan will introduce drought -tolerant 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. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. H. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. 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. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and in the same zone. Section 17.16.070 of the Municipal Code provides that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The topographic nature of the subject property is such that construction of the driveway adjacent to the home will require a fill slope that complies with other applicable development standards. While the fill slope in the area of the driveway will only be two feet thick on average, both the cut and fill areas are counted in the disturbed area calculation. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. Due to the configuration of the property, which fronts on two streets, and the size of the lot, the roadways easements plus ten feet adjacent thereto on both frontages, plus the driveway leading to the neighbors are not Resolution No. 2012-17 4 included in the net lot areaculations, therefore considerably .inishing the size of the lot. In addition the driveway serving the adjacent property is included in the disturbed area of the lot, therefore adding to the disturbance of the lot. Construction of the fill slope will increase the disturbed area on the site from its current 40% of the net lot area to approximately 49.6%, which includes the future stable. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of better -designed driveway because the topographic nature of the lot makes it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.170. 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. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Section 10 Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it states that walls not to exceed 3-feet, under certain circumstances, may be located in setbacks. The applicants request Variance to allow retaining walls to be located in the 50-foot required front yard setback, and the walls would exceed 2 l foot average height. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in that the access to the property is gained through another property and also serves a third property to the east. The existing driveway approach located at 38 Eastfield crosses the property line at 40 Eastfield and then separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and one serving 42 Eastfield. This creates a dangerous situation when two cars are in the driveway at the same time. In addition the visibility is very poor at the intersection of the two driveways. The applicants propose to correct this situation by proposing to construct two separate driveways, which require retaining walls. No portion of the retaining walls would be higher than 5 feet. The walls are also necessary for erosion control to adequately contain the slopes above and between the driveways. Resolution No. 2012-17 5 B. The variance 'necessary for the preservation andenjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. Due to the topography of the lots, many of the homes in the area are developed with retaining walls along their front yards. The construction of the walls is intended to alleviate the ongoing problem of a joint driveway and provide a permanent solution. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The three property owners whose properties are currently affected by the existing situation and will be affected by this proposal are in agreement. No neighbors came forth in opposition to the walls. The proposed walls will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity, where the topography of the lots dictate grading requirements where retaining walls are required in the front yard, and which on the average exceed 2 1/2 feet. The requested encroachment is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. 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, as there are several properties with retaining walls along their driveways in the front yard. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.150. F. 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. Section 11. Section 17.16.200(I) prohibits the construction of a swimming pool or other structures in the front yard area of a lot, except where a Variance is approved. The applicants are requesting to construct a 750 square foot swimming pool with a spa in the front yard, in the same location as an existing pool. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The proposed pool will be located in the same area of the front yard as previously existed pool, except that it would be larger. The location of the residence and the topographical features of the lot prevent the pool to be located in a different area. The building pad was Resolution No. 2012-17 6 graded in a manner that th•nstruction of a pool and outdooring amenities lend itself to the front location. The topography of the lot together with the fact that the pad has been already created, cause difficulty in constructing the new improvements elsewhere on the property. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the new construction elsewhere on the property. The lot is unique in that it is steep behind the residence and any different configuration for a pool on the lot would require additional grading. The pool would be located in an area least obtrusive to adjacent properties and in the same location as the existing pool. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, 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, is located in an area of an existing pool and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed construction will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. The proposed pool and spa will not encroach into the existing or potentially future equestrian uses on the property. A suitable area for a future stable and corral has been set aside. 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. Section 12. Section 17.16.040(A)(1) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of more than one driveway, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting permission to build a new driveway approach, relocate an existing approach and abandon that portion of the existing approach that will no longer be used for a driveway. Both driveways would be located on 38 Eastfield Drive property and will serve 40 Eastfield and 42 Eastfield properties. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the additional driveway and relocation of the existing driveway would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use with a CUP. The area proposed for the driveways would require small amount of grading. With this application an existing dangerous situation would be corrected. Resolution No. 2012-17 7C21-.3) B. The nature, •dition, and development of aent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the driveways will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed use will be similar to the existing situation, but improved from a vehicular safety standpoint. The area of the existing driveways will be improved as new surface, which will aid in storm water management will be placed on the driveways and therefore the area will be aesthetically enhanced. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the driveways are not structures and will enhance the area and provide for safe ingress and egress for three separate properties. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use under the Municipal Code. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed project and approved it. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 13. Section 17.16.040(A)(1) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of more than one driveway, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, Section 17.16.210 (A)(1) requires that if more than one driveway is requested the driveways shall be separated by a minimum of 100 feet distance and be located on property with at least 200 foot frontage on a street. A Variance may be requested from these requirements. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Variance for construction of the additional driveway and relocation of the existing driveway would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community where more than one driveways are located on a property with less than 200 feet frontage and are less than 100 feet apart. The property is unique in that the access to the property is gained through another property and also serves a third property to the east. The existing driveway approach located at 38 Eastfield crosses the property line at 40 Eastfield and then separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and one serving 42 Eastfield. This creates a dangerous situation when two cars are in the driveway at the same time. In addition the visibility is very poor at the intersection of the two driveways. The applicants propose to correct this situation by proposing to construct two separate driveways. The nature of the topography on lots at 40 and 42 Eastfield is that a driveway may not be constructed on those lots and there already exist two driveways at 38 Eastfield, which are less than 100 feet apart. This condition has existed with the development of 38, 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive properties in the 1950's. The area proposed for the driveways would require small amount of grading. With this application an existing dangerous situation would be corrected. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the driveways will not adversely affect or be materially Resolution No. 2012-17 8 („2_�t detrimental to these adjaceises, buildings, or structures be, the proposed use will be similar to the existing situation, but improved from a vehicular safety standpoint. The area of the existing driveways will be improved as new surface, which will aid in storm water management will be placed on the driveways and therefore the area will be aesthetically enhanced. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed driveways and recommended approval, as it is the best situation given the topography and configurations of those lots. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the driveways are not structures and will enhance the area and provide for safe ingress and egress for three separate properties. D. The proposed Variance complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use under the Municipal Code. The Traffic Engineer and Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed project and approved it. E. The proposed Variance is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Modified Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 824 with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable and corral area set aside requirements and all other requirements of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the City Planning Department dated August 3, 2012 (site plan) and July 17, 2012 (floor plan). The size of the basement, including garage basement shall not be greater than the size of the house and garage. The size of the structures shall be measured from the outside walls of the structure. E. This project including all hardscape shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of Resolution No. 2012-17 9 the proposed structure. Al'deviations to this project that thSHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development, shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project and additional evaluation. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 19.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations and includes 450 sq.ft. future stable. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,818 square feet or 29.8 % in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, (approximately 3,008 square feet in total) shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturers specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. J. Those portions of the new driveways, which are to be located on 38 Eastfield Drive shall have a pervious surface. Manufacturers specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable. K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, an off site grading and construction agreement shall be obtained from the property owners at 38 Eastfield and recorded as may be required by the Building Code. L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims of old easements shall be recorded. M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,682 square feet or 49.6% in conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable and corral pad. N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,885 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,963 square feet or 54.0%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch. O. Grading shall not exceed 5,251 cubic yards of dirt total to include 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 cubic yards from the basement and 868 cubic yards of fill. Export of the dirt from the basement is allowed. Grading for the new driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be certified by a third party engineer at the applicant's expense. The engineer shall be selected by the City. Resolution No. 2012-17 10 & P. The proposedOaining wall, which would replan existing retaining wall located to the south of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade. Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished floor elevation shall be at 1079 elevation. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. The basement shall not exceed 14 feet in depth and the garage basement may not exceed 16 feet in depth. S. The elevation of the finished floor and the ridgeline of the residence and garage shall be certified by a certified civil engineer prior to completion of the framing of the structure. The above -specified height of the ridgeline includes the finished roof, not the sheeting of the roof. The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to certify the height of the structure and the finished floor elevations. T. The proposed pool shall not exceed 750 square feet and shall include the spa as measured along the water line of the structures. U. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. V. "The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code". 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. W. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. X. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound of the lift in the garage. The lift mechanism shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. The sound shall be according to the manufacturer's specification. Should there be a complaint regarding noise from the lift, the applicant shall be required to show decibels readings in accordance with the manufacturer's specification. Y. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no further modifications, changes or variations to the project approved by this Resolution No. 2012-17 resolution. Any future deeopment or construction shall bOl eviewed by the Planning Commission. Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request. Z. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence, the parking area and the light well walls from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all shrubs and trees, if any, shall be a minimum of 5 gallon in size. AA. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas, staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. AB. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. AC. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. AD. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AE. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. AF. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2011 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Resolution No. 2012-17 12 • • AG. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements but shall not obstruct driveways or the road. AH. 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. AI. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AJ. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AK. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AL. The lower portion of the lot, utilized as staging and stock piling of dirt shall be returned to its pre -construction contours and the restoration shall be certified by a third party civil engineer. AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration. AN. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground. AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AP. 50% of the demolition and construction materials must be recycled/diverted. Prior to granting a final inspection, verification shall be submitted to staff verifying recycling. AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement. AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. Resolution No. 2012-17 13 20) • AT. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK DAY OF 2012. JEFF PIEPER, CHAIRMAN Resolution No. 2012-17 14 (jO • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2012-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF .THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT LARGER THAN APPROVED RESIDENCE, BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL; GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT, TO CONSTRUCT UP TO 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS, WHICH ON THE AVERAGE WOULD BE GREATER THAN 2 1/2 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, TO LOCATE THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND OFF SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AT 38 EASTFIELD DRIVE, TO SERVE THE PROPERTY AT 42 EASTFIELD DRIVE OVER 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AND A VARIANCE FOR DISTANCE SEPARATION OF THE DRIVEWAYS IN ZONING CASE NO, 824 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on 2012 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2012-17 15 5 4 ea", 06 Rea, gelid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 8/21/12 Agenda Item: 8A TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JULY 5, 2012 AUGUST 2, 2012 REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tonsich request to modify previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745. The modification entails new requests as follows: a. Site Plan Review for: i. additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported ii. construction of larger than previously approved residence, garage, pool, and basement consisting of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement, 646 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway iii. off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill (balance of fill will be taken from the project site) iv. construction of over 3 foot high walls. b. Variance to: i. exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, which would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 ii. construction of up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 21/2 feet in height. • • c. Conditional Use Permit to: i. construct an additional driveway approach at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved the driveway approach in January 2012. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, continue the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 626 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at then current size of 450 sq.ft., but remodeled. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1%. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 4. The Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing in the field on August 14, 2012. At the meeting discussion ensued regarding the shape of the new driveway. It was recommended that the neighbors come to an agreement before the next Planning Commission meeting. Concerns were also expressed by the neighbors at 38 Eastfield regarding the project as follows: a. Require pervious material on the new driveway and the modified existing driveway b. Move the northwestern portion of the easement for the new driveway closer to the edge of the driveway c. Remove proposed pilasters along the driveways located at 38 Eastfield d. The new garage is located directly opposite the master bedroom at 38 Eastfield; property owners are concerned with the noise the car lifts would create. The Planning Commission could address the issue of noise and the pavers for the driveways. The RHCA has jurisdiction over the pilasters and easements. 5. Following Planning Commission approval in 2007 the City Council took Zoning Case No. 745 under jurisdiction and after expressing some concerns regarding the overall design, upheld the Commission's decision. 6. A condition was placed on the property that any further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. In addition, the request for a CUP for the driveway and the Variances for disturbance and walls in setback for the driveway require Planning Commission review and approval. 7. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design .f the residence, of the porches and the t I • • basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. The City Council added the following condition to their approval: "This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the City". 8. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence, the location of the basements wells and the location of the garage were slightly changed, which staff approved over-the-counter. 9. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration. So the design for the basement was changed, not only during the review of the Architectural Committee but also due to the City's new requirements. 10. Prior to grading, staff approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 11. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. The site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. The applicant requests to construct a larger basement, larger house and a larger pool. A letter of request and explanation is attached. The ridge height of the residence will not change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate the car lifts. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. 12. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. After reviewing several different driveway proposals it was established and approved by the Traffic Engineer and subsequently by the Traffic Commission, that the only way to serve • 42 Eastfield with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The Traffic Commission approved the third driveway approach on 38 Eastfield at their January 26, 2012 meeting. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reduced in width. If the CUP for a third curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 13. Several walls need to be constructed in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of the walls would be located in front setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. 14. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 15. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 16. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 17. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/ decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have pervious pavers surface, which is considered pervious and therefore not counted towards the total lot coverage. 18. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1%. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 19. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 20. It is required that all utility lines be placed underground. • • 21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 22. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage as well as the neighboring lot. The previous approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in the rear of the house, as more grading would be required. 23. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 24. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 25. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD —COMPARISON TABLE. ADDRESS RESIDENCE LOT AREA** 7 Outrider 1 4,483* 51,940 45 Eastfield 5,204* 119,370 41 Eastfield j 2,451 1 36,720 39 Eastfield 2,783 1 35,950 44 Eastfield 3,183* 38,610 42 Eastfield 1 1,854 34,660 38 Eastfield 2,088 42,470 36 Eastfield 5,649 36,330 • • AVERAGE 3,462 49,506 40 Eastfield 4,075 approved 50,960 5,095 proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and • • 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES, 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. DRIVEWAY(s) AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PERVIOUS SURFACE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GUEST HOUSE AND FUTURE STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. Must be balanced on site. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND APPROVALS AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AS EXISTED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION Single family residence with unauthorized detached garage & storage structure Residence Garage Storage shed Stable 2355 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 310 sq.ft 0 Equip.shed/service 51 sq.ft. Pool 442 sa.ft TOTAL 3558 sq.ft. AS APPROVED IN 2002 & AMENDED in 2005 due to a requirement for remediation of the slope below the residence Substantial addition, mixed use structure-garage/rec. room, guesthouse & future stable AS PROPOSED IN 2007 (not approved) New Residence, detached garage, & future stable Residence 3021sq.ft Residence 4496 sq.ft. Garage 596 sq.ft. Garage 651 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Pool 442 sq.ft Pool 442 sq.ft. Equip.shed 51 sq.ft Equip.shed 51 sq.ft. Guesthouse 800 sq.ft. Cov. Porch 624 sq.ft. ServiceNd 96 sa.ft. Entryway 110 sq.ft. Service/yd 96 sq.ft. TOTAL 5456 sq.f Basement 3123 sa.ft. TOTAL 6920 sq.ft. APPROVED IN 2007 New single family residence, attached garage w/basement and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL Driveway 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways TOTAL 4075 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2979 sa.ft. 6448 sa.ft 2304 sq.ft. 2044 sq.ft. 2125 sq.ft. 465 sa.ft. 6,938 sq.ft. 8.97% 13.7% 17.5% of 39,664 sq.ft. net lot 6,316 s.f. or 16.2% area 24.16% 29.7% 34.9% 35.3% N/A N/A 40.8% 54.2% (including stable and quest house) 784 cubic yards of cut 784 cubic yards of fill 44.2% of 13,619 sq.ft pad 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 1,182 cubic yards cut 1,182 cubic yards fill, including basement Page 1 of 2 13,254 s.f. or 33.4% 12,885 s.f. or 40%; W/O 407 s.f. porch. 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 833 cubic yards cut 833 cubic yards fill, plus export of dirt from basement CURENTLY REQUESTED (Aug. 2012) New single family residence, attached garage w/basement, pool and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL 5095 sq.ft. 698 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 750 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 646 sq.ft. 136 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 5995 sa.ft. 7922 sq.ft. Primary Driveway 563 sq.ft. 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways 2406 sq.ft. 842 sq.ft. 85 sa.ft. TOTAL 3,896 sq.ft. Grass Pavers 3,008 sq.ft. 7,922 sq.ft. or 19.97% 11,818 sq.ft. or 29.8% (coverage is less due to the proposed use of grass pavers) 12,885 s.f. bldg pad; 6,963 sq.ft. or 54.0% (excl. 509 sq.ft. porch) 3,961 sq.ft. pad. 12.2% 4383 c.y. cut inc.!. 3390 c.y. from basement; 868 c.y. fill Export 3,390 from bsmnt 38 Eastfield - cut 180.c.y. fill 305 c.y.: (Dirt balanced from 40 Eastfield) DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS 32.3% N/A 23,980 sq.ft. 60.0% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property over neighbors property N/A Planning Commission condition N/A I Planning Commission condition 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission review Planning Commission review Page 2 of 2 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 19,682 sq.ft. or 49.6% (including future stable area) Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property; to be reconfigured IPlanning Commission review IPlanning Commission review • • eete, 4 Rowe>, qieed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 8/14/12 FIELD TRIP Agenda Item: 4A TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 824 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF) RAS-1, 1.43 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. NICHOLAS TONSICH ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT ROSS BOLTON, BOLTON ENGINEERING JULY 5, 2012 AUGUST 2, 2012 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tonsich request a Site Plan Review to modify previously approved development in Zoning Case No 745. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported from the basement, pool and footings; construction of 5,095 square foot residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,995 square foot basement, 658 square foot porch, 136 square foot entryway, 750 square foot swimming pool and 51 square foot pool equipment area, service yard and future stable. The portion of the basement underneath the garage will be used as storage/parking of two cars that will be lowered into the basement. A lift and a platform will be constructed in the garage to lower and retrieve cars from the basement area. The applicants also request a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot. The proposed disturbance would be 19,682 square feet or 49.6 % and to construct up to 5' high retaining walls along the driveways in the front setback, which on the average would exceed 2 1 / 2 feet in height. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to construct an additional driveway access at 38 Eastfield Drive to serve the property at 42 Eastfield Drive. The Traffic Commission reviewed and approved the driveway in January 2012. 0 • • 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the project in the field, open the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. The original approval in 2007 in Zoning Case 745, which the applicant is seeking to modify was for a 4,075 square foot residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, future stable and a service yard. Grading was approved at 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill with 1,660 cubic yards export of dirt. The swimming pool was to remain at its current size, but remodeled. The disturbed area was approved at 39.1%. The vote was 4-1. Commissioner Witte abstained due to the fact that he was not present at two of the meetings, including a field visit. The City Council took Zoning Case No. 745 under jurisdiction and after expressing some concerns regarding the overall design, upheld the Commission's decision. The enclosed chart shows previous proposals and approvals on the property beginning in 2002. 4. A condition was placed on the property that any further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. In addition, the request for a CUP for the driveway and the Variances for disturbance and walls in setback for the driveway require Planning Commission review and approval. 5. During the 2007 proceedings, both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns regarding the design of the residence, of the porches and the basement, giving it a two-story look. In consultation with the City Attorney, the City Attorney opinioned that the City is responsible for reviews of site plans and grading and determination whether the project meets development standards of the Municipal Code. Jurisdiction over architecture is outside the City's purview and lies within the RHCA Architectural Committee. The City Council added the following condition to their approval: "This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the City". 6. During the RHCA review process of the project, the RH Architectural Committee required several modifications to the light wells, the entrance and the porch. With the porch, light wells and entrance modifications, the shape of the proposed residence, the location of the basements wells and the location of the garage were slightly changed, which staff approved over-the-counter. • • 7. At the same time that this project was being reviewed, the City's regulations regarding basements and basement light wells were under consideration. So the design for the basement was changed, not only during the review of the Architectural Committee but also due to the City's new requirements. 8. Prior to grading, staff approved a temporary construction driveway off of Outrider Road, with a condition that, after construction, it be returned to its original condition. 9. In 2011 staff approved the project for grading only, which is in process. During construction of the walls for the basement, it was brought to the City's attention the applicant's desire to change the scope of the project. The site geological conditions of the site (location of bedrock) required that the basement be deeper than originally approved, 14 feet vs. 11 feet, which would generate more dirt. The applicant requests to construct a larger basement, larger house and a larger pool. A letter of request and explanation is attached. The ridge height of the residence will not change from the previously approved project. The garage basement is proposed to be 16' deep to accommodate the car lifts. 10. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.4 acres. This is a through lot, with two frontages, on Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Access to this property and to the property to the southeast (40 and 42 Eastfield) is through a common driveway approach located on the property to the west (38 Eastfield). A ten -foot paved driveway serving 42 Eastfield traverses along the entire width of this lot. A separate driveway approach that serves 38 Eastfield is also located on the 38 Eastfield property. After reviewing several different driveway proposals it was established and approved by the Traffic Engineer and subsequently by the Traffic Commission, that the only way to serve 42 Eastfield with a separate approach is to construct a new driveway cut on 38 Eastfield. The Traffic Commission approved the third driveway approach on 38 Eastfield at their January 26, 2012 meeting. The existing driveway approach to 40 and 42 will be reduced in width. If the CUP for a third curb cut on 38 Eastfield Drive is approved, the applicant's engineer will prepare the necessary documents, for abandoning of old easements and establishing new easements, for signatures and recordation between the three neighbors. 11. Several walls need to be constructed in order to accomplish the construction of the driveways. The walls will vary in height from a curb to maximum of 5 feet. Some of the walls would be located in front setback and therefore the applicant requests a Variance. 12. Some grading is proposed on 38 Eastfield property for the construction of the new driveways. Required would be 180 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill, the balance of dirt will be taken from 40 Eastfield. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 13. The net lot area, as calculated for development purposes, is 39,664 square feet. The lot is 62,410 square feet total (1.43 acres), including the roadway easements and 50,960 sq.ft. when deducting the roadway easements. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to calculations of the net lot area. In addition, the driveway that serves 42 • • Eastfield is also deducted from the calculations towards the net lot area, but is included in the calculations of disturbance. 14. The residential building pad 12,885 square feet. With the enlarged residence and pool, the residential building pad coverage would be 54.0%. There is a pad below the main residential pad that was set aside for a stable and corral. Coverage on the 3,691 square foot pad would be12.2% if a minimum 450 square foot stable was constructed. 15. The structural lot coverage is proposed to be 7,922 square feet or 19.9% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted). Total lot coverage, including structures, driveways, including the driveway serving the adjacent property, and other paved areas/ decking is proposed to be 11,818 square feet or 29.8% of the net lot area (35% maximum permitted). 3,008 square feet of the parking pad and the area in front of the driveway is proposed to have grass pavers surface, which is considered pervious and therefore not counted towards the total lot coverage. 16. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 49.6%, including for the future stable. Previously approved at 39.1%. The applicants request a Variance for disturbance. 17. The modification entails additional grading for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt to be generated/used as follows: total of 4,383 cubic yards of cut, which includes 3,390 c.y. from the basement, and 868 cubic yards of fill. The elevation of the residential building pad was previously approved to be raised by no more than 2.1 feet, which is not proposed to be modified. 18. It is required that all utility lines be placed underground. 19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 20. In response to justification for the variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot, the applicants agent state that the additional grading is required to create the necessary pad and driveway access to the garage as well as the neighboring lot. The previous approval was already very close to the maximum permitted disturbance and any new work would require a Variance. The new driveway is located in the front setback and therefore the required walls would be located in the front setback. In response to justification for locating the pool in the front yard the applicants agent state that there already is a pool, although smaller, in the front yard and the new pool would be in the same location, except enlarged. The additional square footage does not cause exceedance in the structural coverage, as pervious surface will be introduced to soften the hardscape. He states that it would not be feasible to place the new pool in the rear of the house, as more grading would be required. 21. When reviewing a site plan review, variance and conditional use permit applications the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically • • sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills, as shown in the criteria below. 22. The project has an adequate set aside area for a future stable, corral and access, which would not require grading when constructed. 23. This is a unique lot in that it has a double frontage and a driveway that leads to another property. Although the gross lot area is over 62,400 square feet, due to the required deduction of the two roadway easements and the deduction of the area of the driveway that does not serve the property owner at all, the net lot area for development purposes is slightly over 39,000 square feet. 40 EASTFIELD —COMPARISON TABLE ADDRESS RESIDENCE LOT AREA** 7 Outrider 4,483* 51,940 45 Eastfield 5,204* 119,370 41 Eastfield 2,451 36,720 39 Eastfield 2,783 35,950 44 Eastfield 3,183* 38,610 42 Eastfield 1,854 34,660 38 Eastfield 2,088 42,470 36 Eastfield 5,649 36,330 AVERAGE 3,462 49,506 40 Eastfield 4,075 approved 50,960 5,095 proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages and other accessory uses ** Excludes roadway easements only SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 0 • • 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; 0 • • E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. DRIVEWAY(s) AND OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACES PERVIOUS SURFACE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GUEST HOUSE AND FUTURE STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. Must be balanced on site. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REQUESTS AND APPROVALS AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE AS EXISTED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION Single family residence with unauthorized detached garage & storage structure Residence Garage Storage shed Stable Equip.shed/service Pool 2355 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 310 sq.ft 0 51 sq.ft. 442 sa.ft TOTAL 3558 sq.ft. 8.97% 24.16% 35.3% N/A N/A AS APPROVED IN 2002 & AMENDED in 2005 due to a requirement for remediation of the slope below the residence Substantial addition, mixed use structure-garage/rec. ro o m, guesthouse & future stable AS PROPOSED IN 2007 (not approved) New Residence, detached garage, & future stable Residence 3021sq.ft Residence 4496 sq.ft. Garage 596 sq.ft. Garage 651 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Pool 442 sq.ft Pool 442 sq.ft. Equip.shed 51 sq.ft Equip.shed 51 sq.ft. Guesthouse 800 sq.ft. Cov. Porch 624 sq.ft. Service/vd 96 sa.ft. Entryway 110 sq.ft. Service/yd 96 sq.ft. TOTAL 5456 sq.f Basement 3123 sa.ft. TOTAL 6920 sq.ft. 13.7% 29.7% 40.8% 54.2% (including stable and quest house) 784 cubic yards of cut 784 cubic yards of fill 17.5% of 39,664 sq.ft. net lot area 34.9% 44.2% of 13,619 sq.ft pad 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 1,182 cubic yards cut 1,182 cubic yards fill, including basement Page 1 of 2 APPROVED IN 2007 New single family residence, attached garage w/basement and future stable Residence Garage Stable -future Pool Equip.shed Cov. Porch Entryway Service/yd Basement TOTAL Driveway 2nd drwy Pool deck Walkways TOTAL 4075 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 442 sq.ft. 51 sq.ft. 624 sq.ft. 110 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 2979 sa.ft. 6448 sq.ft 2304 sq.ft. 2044 sq.ft. 2125 sq.ft. 465 sa.ft., 6,938 sq.ft. 6,316 s.f. or 16.2% 13,254 s.f. or 33.4% 5459 s.f. or 40%; W/O 407 s.f. porch. 40.9% stable only on 1,100 sq.ft. pad 833 cubic yards cut 833 cubic yards fill, plus export of dirt from basement CURENTLY REQUESTED (Aug. 2012) New single family residence, attached garage w/basement, pool and future stable Residence 5095 sq.ft. Garage 698 sq.ft. Stable -future 450 s Pool 750 Equip.shed 51 sq. Cov. Porch 646 sq.ft. Entryway 136 sq.ft. Service/yd 96 sq.ft. Basement 5995 sa.ft. TOTAL 7922 sq.ft. Primary Driveway 563 sq.ft. 2nd drwy 2406 sq.ft. Pool deck 842 sq.ft. Walkways 85 sa.ft. TOTAL 3,896 sq.ft. Grass Pavers 3,008 sq.ft. 7,922 sq.ft. or 19.97% 11,818 sq.ft. or 29.8% (coverage is less due to the proposed use of grass pavers) 12,885 s.f. bldg pad; 6,963 sq.ft. or 54.0% (excl. 509 sq.ft. porch) 0- 3.96961 sq.ft. pad. 12.2% 993 c.y. cut plus 3390 c.y. from basement; 868 c.y. fill Export 3,390 from bsmnt 38 Eastfield - cut 180.c.y. fill 305 c.y.; (Dirt balanced from 40 Eastfield) DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS 32.3% N/A 23,980 sq.ft. 60.0% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property N/A N/A over neighbors property Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission review Planning Commission review Page 2 of 2 15,510 sq.ft. or 39.1% Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 19,682 sq.ft. or 49.6% (including future stable area) Future from Outrider Existing access from Eastfield, over neighbors property; to be reconfigured Planning Commission review Planning Commission reviak. • • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 9 July 30, 2012 Planning Dept. City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attention: Yolanta Swartz, Planning Director Subject: Revised applications for 40 Eastfield, R.H. Yolanta: This letter will serve to reply to your July 6, 2012, inquiry regarding the basis for the application for residence structural increase at the above -referenced property. We are revising the grading plan and applications as you have requested to clarify some of the parameters as we have discussed. We have changed the following items for your review and approval: Initially, the basement was increased in size and depth due to the site geological conditions. . This increased size was due to the necessity of placing the entire house on bedrock to limit the differential settlement that could occur. This also eliminated the necessity to install caissons for the rear portion of the house. The basement depth was increased from 11 feet to 14 feet due to the lower depth of the bedrock. The basement is not encroaching in the sideyard setbacks, and essentially expanded in an east -west direction, not towards either adjoining neighbor. The basement has been extended to include being under the three car garage. This basement will allow two car lifts to be installed to provide car storage below the garage in the basement which allows the following: With the lift in the raised position, a car will enter the garage, the lift will lower, the ceiling of the lift will then be level with the garage floor, and another car can be garaged on this ceiling of the lift. This operation will be reversed to drive the two cars out of this one car space. Additionally, the garage is proposed to be increased approximately 100 sq. ft. due to a modified design of the garage with three 9 foot wide garage doors that were previously designed at 8 foot wide. 8 foot wide garage doors would have resulted in a limited useful garage when accounting for wall thickness and the utility of accommodating full size vehicles and SUVs. The proposed structural lot coverage does not exceed the guideline of 35%. Incidentally, the Tonsich's lot is about 1.5 acres (about 62,000 sq. feet) gross and they are requesting about a 5,100 square foot house (which is consistent with similar properties at 36 Eastfield and 66 Eastfield recently offered for sale that exceed 5,000 square feet on lots of approximately 45,000 and 60,000 square feet respectively). Furthermore, the design of the house is early California Ranchero, which requires 18 to 24 inch thick walls with recessed windows and doors. This style of architecture is adversely penalized when square footage is calculated to the exterior of the walls. In certain situations the square footage of the house is determined by excluding the area of the exterior walls, the area of the stairs/ elevators and chimneys which would reduce the floor area. Once these areas are excluded, the net floor area is quite close to the approved square footage area. Therefore, the application seeks to preserve the room sizes and layout as initially designed with a slightly larger gross square footage necessitated by unforeseen geological conditions, and to allow for the residence structure to encompass the entire area of the slightly increased foundational walls. The main floor of the house and the ridge height have remained the same as shown on the approved plan. Another item that has changed is the pool has been increased from 450 sq. feet to 750 square feet. Due to the pool being in the front yard and proposing a larger pool than the original legal nonconforming pool in the front yard requires us to apply for an additional variance. The pool will not be visible from any adjacent street. We will be submitting drawings and the required calculated areas for your review and approval by August 1, 2012 for the Planning Commission field trip on August 14, 2012. If you need more information or have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ross N. Bolton, President