Loading...
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—,