Loading...
366, Construct a retaining wall in , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW IN ZONING CASE NO. 366 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Jeffrey Faver for a front yard setback variance and for site plan review of a proposed residential project on property located at 5 Southfield Drive (Lot 3-SF), Rolling Hills, California. The application seeks a variance to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the front yard setback of the property and for site plan review for construction of a residence approximately 2,700 square feet in size and a garage approximately 800 square feet in size. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 1990, to which the appli- cant and all members of the public were invited. The Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The subject property is situated adjacent to an active landslide. The applicant was informed that a focused environmental impact report, including engineering, hydrology, geology and soils studies, would be required prior to the Planning Commission considering the application for variance and site plan review. A geotechnical consultant (Geofon, Inc.) was retained to prepare a study in two phases. Phase I of the study was completed with a recommendation by the consultant that addi- tional tests and analysis of the site geology be made part of Phase II. Before consenting to the completion of Phase II of the focused EIR, the applicant requested certain assurances and clarification as to the City's position on the scope and adequacy of the geotechnical study. Upon providing that clarification, an amendment to the geotechnical consultant's agreement was prepared and approved by the City providing for the additional tests and analysis recommended by the consultant as part of Phase II of the geotechnical study. The applicant has subsequently not consented to the completion of the geotechnical study by refusing to execute a reimbursement agreement for the cost of that study. B. Without completion of the focused EIR con- taining a completed geotechnical study, the Planning Commission 901111 lem 1680326 (1) has insufficient evidence to find that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public wel- fare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located (Paragraph C of Section 17.32.03 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). The Commission also has insufficient evidence at this point to find that the site plan of the proposed residential construction on the site preserves existing natural topographic features, mini- mizes grading and is compatible with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses (Section 17.34.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). C. Without completion of the focused EIR, the Planning Commission is unable to make the necessary environmental finding required by the California Environmental Quality Act that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or that measures can be taken to mitigate or substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15092.) D. State law precludes approval of the applications absent compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the variance and site plan review sought in Zoning Case No. 366 is hereby denied. 1990. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of November, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 901111 Lem 1680326 (1) - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW IN ZONING CASE NO. 366 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Jeffrey Faver for a front yard setback variance and for site plan review of a proposed residential project on property located at 5 Southfield Drive (Lot 3-SF), Rolling Hills, California. The application seeks a variance to allow for the construction of retaining walls in the front yard setback of the property and for site plan review for construction of a residence approximately 2,700 square feet in size and a garage approximately 800 square feet in size. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 1990, to which the appli- cant and all members of the public were invited. The Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The subject property is situated adjacent to an active landslide. The applicant was informed that a focused environmental impact report, including engineering, hydrology, geology and soils studies, would be required prior to the Planning Commission considering the application for variance and site plan review. A geotechnical consultant (Geofon, Inc.) was retained to prepare a study in two phases. Phase I of the study was completed with a recommendation by the consultant that addi- tional tests and analysis of the site geology be made part of Phase II. Before consenting to the completion of Phase II of the focused EIR, the applicant requested certain assurances and clarification as to the City's position on the scope and adequacy of the geotechnical study. Upon providing that clarification, an amendment to the geotechnical consultant's agreement was prepared and approved by the City providing for the additional tests and analysis recommended by the consultant as part of Phase II of the geotechnical study. The applicant has subsequently not consented to the completion of the geotechnical study by refusing to execute a reimbursement agreement for the cost of that study. B. Without completion of the focused EIR con- taining a completed geotechnical study, the Planning Commission 901111 lem 1680326 (1) has insufficient evidence to find that the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public wel- fare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located (Paragraph C of Section 17.32.03 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). The Commission also has insufficient evidence at this point to find that the site plan of the proposed residential construction on the site preserves existing natural topographic features, mini- mizes grading and is compatible with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses (Section 17.34.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). C. Without completion of the focused EIR, the Planning Commission is unable to make the necessary environmental finding required by the California Environmental Quality Act that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or that measures can be taken to mitigate or substantially reduce the potentially significant environmental effects of the project. (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15092.) D. State law precludes approval of the applications absent compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the variance and site plan review sought in Zoning Case No. 366 is hereby denied. 1990. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of November, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CITY CLERK 901111 Lem 1680326 (1) - 2 -