0671RESOLUTION NO. �_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS UPHOLDING_THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENIAL
OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN
ZONING CASE NO. 366
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.
Jeffrey Faver with respect to real property located at
5 Southfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 3 - SF) requesting Site
Plan Review approval for construction of a single family
residence and detached garage, a variance to encroach into the
front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and a variance
to encroach into the side yard setback to permit construction of
a portion of the proposed single family residential structure in
zoning case 366.
Section 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was
prepared for the project based in part on information and studies
prepared by GEOFON, Inc., a geotechnical consulting firm. The
EIR was circulated to interested agencies. Comments were
received and responses prepared and incorporated into the EIR
text. A copy of the Final EIR is on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on September 17, 1991 to consider the
application and conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR for
the project on July 16, 1991. Evidence, both written and oral,
was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission
at the public hearings, including but not limited to staff
reports and testimony by members of the public.
Section 4. On September 17, 1991, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution Number 91-25. By that Resolution,
the Planning Commission certified that the Final EIR was
completed in compliance with CEQA, that the Final EIR was
presented to and reviewed by the Planning Commission, and that
the Planning Commission considered the information contained in
the Final EIR prior to.considering the project.
Section 5. By Planning Commission Resolution Number
91-25, the Planning Commission made findings of fact and denied
the applicant's request for a variance to encroach into the front
yard setback, denied a request for a variance to encroach into
920306 kge 1680785 2
0
the side yard setback and denied a request for site plan review
approval of a new single family residence on the site.
Section 6. On November 6, 1991 the applicant appealed
the Planning Commission's decisions in this matter to the City
Council.
Section 7. On January 27, 1992 the City Council held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider the applicant's appeal of
the Planning Commission's decisions in this matter.
Section 8. The City Council hereby certifies that the
Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the Final
EIR was presented to and reviewed by the City Council, and that
the City Council considered the information contained in the
Final EIR prior to making a decision on the appeal of this
project.
Section 9. Section 17.34.010 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for
Site Plan Review and approval before any building or structure
may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or
repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to
grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure
by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month
period.
Section 10. With respect to the applicant's request
for Site Plan Review Approval of the proposed development plan,
the City Council makes the following findings. Where the
applicant made specific comments during the City Council hearing
in response to a Planning Commission finding, those Planning
Commission findings, a summary of the applicant's statements, and
the City Council's findings are set forth separately.
A. The project, as proposed, is a 2,664 square foot
single family residence and an 880 square foot detached garage to
be located on a westerly downhill sloping 1.83 acre lot located
at 5 Southfield Drive in the City of Rolling Hills (EIR pages 1
and 2 as amended).
B. The subject property contains (a) a 3 to 15 foot
wide level unpaved parkway strip along Southfield Drive, (b) a
1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping area descending to
approximately 195 feet below the street grade, and (c) a 1.75 to
1 sloping area extending to the east side of a small intermittent
stream channel which drains into Klondike Canyon in the City or
Rolling Hills (EIR page 13).
C. (1) Planning Commission findings: The top 15 to
20 feet of the soil covering the subject property consists of
some existing fill from the construction of Southfield Drive with
-2-
920306 kge 1680785 2
slopewash material covering the rest of the property. This fill
and.slopewash, due to its geologic characteristics, is unstable
and subject to slippage and landsliding. As a result, the fill
material and slopewash layer is unsuitable to support compacted
fill and the structural loads that would be imposed by.the
project.
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The
applicant recognizes that the top 15 to 20 feet of soil consists
of unstable slope wash material. He stated that the adjacent
roadway (Southfield Drive) is also unstable and this project
would help to stabilize both the roadway and the subject property
(City Council hearing January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The City Council
finds that the top 15 to 20 feet of soil covering the subject
property consists of some fill from the construction of
Southfield Drive with slopewash covering the rest of the property
(EIR page 14). This fill and slopewash, due to its geologic
characteristics, is unstable and subject to slippage and
landsliding (EIR pages 14 and 15, GEOFON Report page 20.) There
is evidence in the record that there is evidence of landsliding
on the site (Scullin Report, 1983). As a result, the fill
material and slopewash layer is unsuitable to support compacted
fill and the structural loads that would be imposed by the
project (EIR pages 14 and 15).
With respect to applicant's assertion that
the roadway would be stabilized by the proposed project, the City
Council finds that the there was evidence submitted by GEOFON
that the construction.of retaining walls on the up-slope portion
of the property is a proposed mitigation measure to help
stabilize the roadway (EIR pages 20 and 21). However, there is
also evidence in the record that the potential for landsliding on
and off the site caused by this project cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance (EIR pages 18, 21 and 22, Keene letter
(July 14, 1991 pages 4 and 5), Kowalewsky letter (July 15, 1991,
page 2), Ehlig Memorandum (July 16, 1991, page 3). The City
Council finds that the road has not slipped since being
constructed and that the project may increase the risk of
slippage by the placement of significant additional weight onto
the site. Thus, the possibility that the wall may help to
stabilize the road does not outweigh the possibility that the
proposed structures will destabilize the site and road.
D. The underlying soil material together with the
slopewash layer have slope stability and seismic factors of
safety less than the County of Los Angeles standards of 1.5 for
slope stability and 1.1 for seismic safety (EIR page 17 and
GEOFON Report page 20). The City Council finds that these County
slope stability and seismic safety factors are appropriate
minimum factors of safety for the City of Rolling Hills in light
920306 kge 1680785 2
9
-3-
of the presence of several active landslides in the City. The
subject site has a slope stability factor of approximately 1.36
and a seismic safety factor of approximately .97 at the location
of the proposed residence (EIR page 17 and GEOFON Report page
20). These factors of safety are below the County standard and
below the standards for development in the City of Rolling Hills.
Construction of the project as proposed on a site with a factor
of stability below the County minimum levels of safety presents
an unacceptable risk of hazard to potential occupants of the
proposed residence and surrounding properties.
E. (1) Planning Commission findings: The mitigation
measures in the EIR relating to the stabilization of the site
recommend the construction of approximately 115 cast -in-hole
drilled 30 inch diameter concrete piles 35 to 40 feet into the
ground at 7.5 feet on center across the entire area covered by
the proposed residence, garage, hardscape and driveway (EIR page
18 and GEOFON Report pages 22 and 23). These piles would
displace approximately 714 cubic yards of soil on the site and
add a significant amount of weight and force to the already
unstable slopewash layer of soil (Testimony during hearing).
Evidence was submitted that similar cast -in-hole drilled piles
have been sheered by the force of landsliding in the Portuguese
Bend area of the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Mr. Keene, letter dated
July 27, 1992). Thus, even with these mitigation measures there
is some risk that slippage in the slopewash of the site could not
be restrained by the cast -in-hole drilled piers (EIR pages 21 and
22).
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The
construction of the cast -in-hole drilled piles and the other
mitigation measures will eliminate the instability of the site
and stabilize the hill. Evidence that the weight of these piles
would destabilize the site and not completely mitigate the
impacts was not based on expert opinion. (City Council hearing on
January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The City Council
incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission set forth in
part (1) of this paragraph E. The City Council also finds that
the EIR states that the mitigation measures will not completely
mitigate the risk of slippage of the slopewash layer on the site
(EIR pages 15, 18, 21 and 22) which conclusion is based on the
expert opinion of Mr. Kowalewsky (July 15, 1991 letter, page 4),
Mr. Ehlig (memorandum dated July 16, 1991) and Mr. Keene (letter
dated July 27, 1991).
F. (1) Planning Commission
risk, identified on page 15 of the EIR,
occur during the construction phase of
presence of heavy construction vehicles
to it.
920306 kge 1680785 2
8i
-4-
findings: There is a
that landsliding may
the project due to the
on the site and adjacent
1
1
1
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The risk of
landsliding during construction is small, is no different than
during the geologic testing, and could be further mitigated by
phasing the installation of the piles. (City Council hearing on
January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The City Council
incorporates the finding of the Planning Commission set forth in
part (1) of this paragraph E. The City Council also finds that
the presence of several large construction trucks on the site
during construction, the destabilization of the slopebank for the
construction of the retaining wall and the drilling of
approximately 115 case -in-hole drilled piles poses a greater risk
of landsliding than the drilling of a few borings on the site
during the geologic testing (EIR page 15).
G. (1) Planning Commission findings: There is a
risk, identified in the EIR, that increased drainage and septic
tank seepage into the soil may result in landsliding of the
slopewash layer of soil on the site. These risks cannot be
completely mitigated, according to the analysis and findings in
the EIR, resulting in adverse effects to the environment.
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The project
will not cause an increase in drainage into the soil because all
drainage will be channelled into underground pipes and taken to
the bottom of the hill. The septic tank seepage will occur below
and deeper than the area of instability. (City Council hearing on
January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The EIR states on
pages 21 and 22 that the increased drainage into the soil caused
by landscape irrigation and hard surface runoff into the soil
will increase the risk of landsliding due to the content and
composition of the slopewash layer and the retention of water
over a long period of time in the slopewash mantel (EIR page 21
and Memorandum from Mr. Ehlig, July 16, 1991). Mitigation
measures to reduce the amount of drainage into the soil will not
completely mitigate this impact (EIR page 21). With regard to
the risks created by septic tank seepage, the City Council finds
that there even with the mitigation measures proposed, the
introduction of septic tank seepage will create a risk of
slippage to the bottom of the slopebank (EIR pages 21 and 22 and
Mr. Ehlig Memorandum (July 15, 1991)).
H. Based upon the facts and findings contained in
paragraphs A through G of this Section, the City Council finds
that the geology of the site is not suitable for the proposed
development project, and that the project would pose a
significant risk to the safety of construction crews, occupants
of the proposed residence, motorists along Southfield Drive, and
to surrounding residents and properties. The City Council
-5-
920306 kge 1680785 2
9
further finds that disallowing the proposed project on this site
is reasonably necessary to protect the public safety as well as
the occupants of the proposed structure.
I. The mitigation measures contained in the EIR
cannot avoid all of the significant environmental effects of the
project regarding the risk of landsliding on the site due to both
the unstable geology and the increase in irrigation and septic
tank seepage. There do not exist specific economic, social, or
other considerations surrounding the development application that
make infeasible the no project alternative contained in the EIR.
Therefore, the City Council finds that the project should be
denied in accordance with the requirements of Section 21081 of
the Public Resources Code.
J. (1) Planning Commission finding: The granting of
the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with
the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan. The residence would cover a small building pad which would
be graded from the hillside and would be close to the edge of the
hillside slope, thereby creating a prominent structural
improvement on the hillside which is not compatible with the
General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential
development patterns in the community.
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The
Planning Commission's finding is inconsistent with an approval of
a project on the site in 1988 by the Rolling Hills Community
Association, which the Association found to be inconspicuous.
(City Council hearing on January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council finding: The City Council
incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission set forth in
part (1) of this paragraph J. In addition, the City Council
finds that the Community Association's criteria for review of
projects are not the same as the City's criteria, that the City
is a separate entity from the Association, that no evidence was
submitted during the hearing as to any previous approval of a
project on this site by the Community Association, and even if
the Association had given its approval of a project on the site,
such action would have predated the City's adoption of its Site
Plan Review Ordinance which established new standards for
development in the City.
K. (1) Planning Commission
would require the cutting and filling of
soil, including the displacement of soil
the cast -in-hole drilled piles. This am
consistent with the requirement of the S
that grading for projects be minimized.
-6-
920306 kge 1680785 2
findings: The project
a substantial amount of
for the installation of
ount of grading is not
ite Plan Review Ordinance
1
1
1
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The
project will require minimal cutting of soil and no filling.of
soil since the project involved construction of the -residence on
caissons. (City Council hearing on January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The proposed
structure will require cutting and filling of soil on the site
(GEOFON Report pages 25 through 29). This grading includes
excavation and displacement of soil for the cast -in-hole drilled
piles, rough grading of the site where the house will be
constructed and excavation for the retaining wall (GEOFON Report
pages 25 through 29). This amount of grading is not consistent
with the requirement of the Site Plan Review Ordinance that
grading for projects be minimized.
L. (1) Planning Commission findings: The proposed
project does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves
f little open space at the edge of the building pad. The proposed
structure would therefore not be harmonious in mass and scale
with the site and would be more visually prominent on the
building pad than the existing development pattern of the City.
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The
Planning Commission's finding refers to a "pad", but no "pad" is
proposed to be graded on this site. (City Council hearing on
January 27, 1992).
(3) City Council findings: The proposed structure
would be placed on the partially graded slope with minimal or no
flat open space around the structure to blunt the visual
prominence of the structure when viewed from surrounding
properties and areas. The proposed structure would therefore not
be harmonious in mass and scale with the site,,(as required by
the City's Site Plan Review Ordinance), would not be consistent
with the existing low -profile development pattern of the City.
M. (1) Planning Commission findings: The driveway
serving the residence at its proposed location will create an
increased risk of pedestrian and vehicular accidents due to its
location near a visually obstructed curve in Southfield Drive.
Consequently, the project as designed would be detrimental to the
safety and convenience of circulation for pedestrians and
vehicles.
(2) Applicant's statements on appeal: The EZR was
not originally supposed to cover the issue of traffic safety and
therefore it is inappropriate for the City to object to the
proposal on these grounds. (City Council hearing on January 27,
1992).
(3) City Council findings: The City Council
incorporates the Planning Commission's findings set forth in part
-7-
920306 kge 1680785 2
9
(1) of this paragraph M and finds that such finding is supported
by statements on pages 24 and 25 of the EIR. In addition, the
City Council also finds that the initial study prepared for the
project indicated that there maybe an increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians caused by the
project. Also, during public hearings on this project, testimony
was submitted as to the risk of traffic hazards created by the
proposed location of the driveway. Thus, the City Council finds
that there was substantial evidence in the record that the
project may have an effect on traffic circulation, thereby
necessitating the inclusion of this issue in tN EIR.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City
Council hereby denies Site Plan Review approval of the proposed
single-family residence and detached garage in Zoning Case 366.
Section 12. Section 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to
permit a retaining wall to encroach up to 50 feet into the front
yard setback. The City Council makes the following findings with
respect to this request:
A. The project for which the variance was requested
has been denied pursuant to Section it of this Resolution.
Therefore, the purposes and necessity for the variance no longer
are found to exist and the request is moot.
B. Construction of the wall would require the
excavation of portions of the fragile hillside and installation
of cast -in-hole drilled piles which would further disturb the
soil and create additional fill to be relocated on the site.
C. The proposed wall will also not conform to the Site
Plan Review Ordinance requirement for low profile development.
The proposed wall will be visually prominent due to its extensive
length and height.
D. For these reasons, the granting of this variance
will be materially detrimental to the public welfare by allowing
development on an unstable site and by creating a visually
prominent structure on the hillside.
Section 13. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
City Council hereby denies the variance to encroach into the
front yard setback to construct a retaining wall in Zoning Case
366.
920306 kge 1680785 2
a
-8-
L7
Section 14. Section 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A variance to Section 17.16.070 is required to
permit the encroachment of a portion of the proposed residence
approximately four (4) feet into the side yard setback. With
respect to this request for a variance, the City Council makes
the following findings:
A. The project for which the variance was requested -
has been denied pursuant to Section 11 of this Resolution.
Therefore, the purposes and necessity for the variance no longer
are found to exist and the request is moot.
B. There are not exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do
not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and
zone that necessitate the construction of a portion of the
proposed residence into the side yard setback. The lot is
presently undeveloped and unconstrained by an existing
development pattern on the site. The lot is relatively large and
has a trapezoidal configuration such that there are no
extraordinary circumstances that justify or necessitate
construction of a portion of a new single family residence in the
side yard setback.
Section 15. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
City Council hereby denies a requested variance for encroachment
into the side yard setback for construction of a portion of the
proposed single family residence in Zoning Case 366.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, THIS DAY CH,
1992.
i
/ayor
ATTEST:
/ City Clerk
-9-
920306 kge 1660785 2
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 671 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENIAL OF A
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO.
366
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 9, 1992 by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Hainsheimer, ?Murdock;
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson and Mayor Pernell.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 671
9
Ci A l"
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY CLERK
r—,