1028 RESOLUTION N0. 1028
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tonsich with respect
to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan
review request for grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, which includes
excavation for a basement 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 existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot
pool equipment will remain, although the swimming pool will be refurbished.
The applicants have originally requested a new driveway approach off of Eastfield Drive, to be
constructed on their property. Currently access to the property is through the property at 38
Eastfield. The Traffic Commission recommended against the driveway in the proposed
location. Following the Traffic Commission's review, the applicant withdrew the request for
the new driveway approach.
Section 2. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2007-15, on September
18, 2007 granting approval in Zoning Case No. 745. The vote was 4-1. Commissioner Witte
abstained due to the fact that he was absent during a field visit
to the site and at the meeting following the field trip.
,
The City Council at their October 8, 2007 meeting 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. The
Councilmembers were concerned that the deck gives a two-story appearance to the structure.
Section 3. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the
application on October 22, 2007, and at a field trip visit on November 13, 2007. The applicants
were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance.
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 City
Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Those members of the City
Council present at the field trip directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval to be
considered at their November 26, 2007 meeting. Councilmember Lay requested that clearer
plans and side view of proposed structure be provided.
Section 4. In October 2002 the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review to
permit construction of an addition to the existing residence, to construct a 596 square foot
detached garage, to construct an S00 square foot guest house and a future stable on a lower
pad; a Variance request to permit the detached garage to encroach into the required side yard
setback and Conditional Use Permits to construct the guest house and the detached garage on
subject property. The City Council, after taking jurisdiction of the case in November of 2002
approved the project with minor changes.
Section 5. During the review process of the 2002 application 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 on the lower pad. In addition, the Los Angeles County Departrnent
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 requirement for slope stability and distance to the ascending slope,
remediation of the slopes was required, which resulted in exceedance in disturbed area of the
lot. In December 2005, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Plan Review for
walls, and grading and a Variance for 60.0% disturbed area.
Section 6. The property is currently developed with a 2,355 square foot residence, 400
square foot detached garage, 442 square foot swimming pool, and 51 square foot service
yard/pool equipment shed. The detached garage currently encroaches into the side yard
setback and is proposed to be demolished.
Resolution No. 1028 1
Section 7. Records show that the existing house with an attached garage was
constructed in 1950. There are no records on file for the detached garage. The garage therefore,
is not permitted. There are also no records indicating that the attached garage, constructed
with the house in 1950, was legally converted into living space. With the new proposal these
unauthorized conditions would be eliminated. However, should the applicant not implement
this project, a condition has been added to this Resolution of approval, that the applicant either
remove the illegal conditions on the lot or apply for a variance and site plan review to legalize
the situation.
Section S. 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. With respect to the Site Plan Review for grading and
construction of a new residence 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 and no variances are required. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as
calculated for development purposes. The size of proposed structure will be 6,316 square feet,
which constitutes 15.9% 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 13,254
square feet which equals 33.4% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot
coverage permitted. 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 on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to
surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature 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. 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
properties in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original
residence. The construction of an attached garage will replace an existing illegal garage.
D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan will supplement the existing
vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
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 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.
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 not
change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. The property
owner may in the future request a driveway off of his property, as the current access is taken
from 38 Eastfield.
Resolution No. 1028 2
H. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 745 for
grading and new residence with the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review, 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 construction and stable
use requirements and all other requirements and 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 Departrnent dated August 17, (site plan) and October 3,
2007 (elevations) except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. 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 Planning Commission.
F. Building permits for this project shall not be issued until the City's amended
regulations relative to basements are adopted and are in effect.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,316 square feet or 15.9% in
conformance with structural lot coverage limitations.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,254 square
feet or 33.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,510 square feet or 39.1% in
conformance with disturbed area limitations.
J. Residential building pad coverage on the 13,619 square foot residential building
pad shall not exceed 5,459 square feet or 40.0%, not including 407 square feet of the covered
porch; coverage on the existing 1,100 square foot future stable pad shall not exceed 40.9%.
K. Grading shall not exceed 833 cubic yards of cut soil and 833 cubic yards of fill
soil. Grading shall be balanced on site and shall include the excavation of the basement.
L. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an 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.
M. The final elevation of the residential building pad shall not be raised by more
than 2.1 feet from the current elevation, and includes the driveway and parking area. 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 11 feet in depth.
N. The existing 442 sq.ft. pool may be refurbished, but may not be increased in size,
unless a Variance for front yard location is approved.
O. Prior to issuance of a final inspection of the new residence, the existing
unauthorized detached garage shall be demolished. The new garage (attached) shall be
constructed and completed concurrently with the new residence.
Resolution No. 1028 3
P. In the event that the approvals contained in this Resolution expire, as stipulated
in subparagraph "A" above, the City will immediately initiate code enforcement proceedings
to assure that a legal two-car garage is provided on the property, and that the converted
attached garage is inspected and that it complies with all applicable building codes.
Q. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any
additional grading on the property or any additional walls, which may be a requirement of
the County Public Works or Building and Safety Departments or a condition of the site
preparation, shall require the filing of an application for approval by the Planning
Commission.
R. Prior to issuance any grading or building permits by the City, the applicants
shall resolve with the RHCA the matter of the newly planted trees and the chain link fence
located in the easement along the south westerly property line and a copy of such resolve shall
be submitted to the City.
S. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence and the parking area
from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not
exceed the ridge height of the residence. No planting or irrigation shall be allowed in the
easements, unless reviewed and approved by the RHCA.
T. Two copies of landscaping plans for the property, including all slope areas, shall
be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading or
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.
U. 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, the above ground swale
and/or dissipater 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.
V. 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.
W. 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.
X. 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.
Y. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion
Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los
Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes
and channels to control storm water pollution.
Z. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any
overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements.
AA. 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.
Resolution No. 1028 4
AB. 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.
AC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's)
related to solid waste and storm water pollution prevention.
AD. 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.
AE. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the
construction shall be staked during the entire construction process.
AF. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D.
AG. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility
lines shall be placed underground.
AH. Prior to the submittal of an applicable grading plan to the County of Los Angeles
for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the Planning
Department and to RHCA for review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling
Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Lesser slopes are encouraged.
AI. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements.
AJ. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the
Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective.
AK. All conditions, when applicable, of the Site Plan Review approval must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
AL. 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 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.
��.-�
JI BLACK, MAYOR �
ATTEST:
�.QJ�.�---�
RILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1028 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ��
CTTY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 1028 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO.
745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 26, 2007 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer� Lay, Pernell � Mayor Pro Tem Hill
and Mayor Black.
NOES: [vone .
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: No n e .
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices. ,
�,!/�.�
DEPUTY CTT CLERK
Resolution No. 1028 6