1135RESOLUTION 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 include 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.
Section 4. The previous approval, in 2007, 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
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.)
1
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 Use Permit as well as variances,
because they would be located 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
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 2
11
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 required, as, detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance, 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.
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 3
1
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:
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 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
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 4
11
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 fixture 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:
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 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
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 5
1
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. The location of the existing driveway shall be moved to the south and revised plans
showing the location of the proposed driveway shall be brought back to the City Council for review and
approval within 90 days. 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.
K. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 18,560 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
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 6
1
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.
V. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider 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.
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 7
1
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:
httD://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.DhD?suite=safety&cage=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.
AD. 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.
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.
Al. 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.
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 8
1
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.
Construction of a stable, if requested, shall be subject 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 ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012.
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 9
1
J ES BLACK, M.D. �`-4--^
MAYOR
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 November 26, 2012 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Hill, Pernell and Mayor Black.
NOES: Councimember Lay.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
*tdi vayj
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1135 (40 Eastfield Dr.) 10
1