1172.pdfRESOLUTION NO. 1172
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE
MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO.
862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91 -EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH).
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. In August 2012, 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 and variances to modify a previously approved project, approved in Zoning Case No. 824 for
grading and construction of a new single family residence and related development. In August 2014, the
applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally
approved project. The request for modification includes additional grading above the residence,
additional grading and not to exceed 5' high wall along the south side of the residence, where the wall
would encroach up to 9 feet into the side yard setback, two additional porches, lowering of the driveway
and the garage by two feet and re -grading the previously approved driveways, additional not to exceed
3' high retaining wall along the re -graded driveway, depressing the basement floor for a wine cellar,
reduce the size of the swimming pool to accommodate the requested porches so that the structural
coverage of the lot is maintained at less than 20%, relocate the service yard, construct outside stairs to
the basement from the house level, construct an electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first
story, relocate the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceed the disturbance of the lot,
and re -construct the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road) which would exceed 2:1 grade.
Section 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of grading for a total of 5,251
cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot
residence, 698 square foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (including underneath the garage), 646
square foot Ioggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 square foot swimming
pool including a spa, off site grading for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic
yards of fill, construction of over 3 foot high walls along the driveways and walls that would exceed 2 '/2
feet average height, disturbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway
and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that
would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Drive.
Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution
No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further
development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site
Plan Review.
Section 4. Following Planning Commission approval of the request, the City Council at their
January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. 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 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application
on February 9, 2015 in the field and at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 9, 2015, and on
March 9, 2015. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice
was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 29, 2015. The applicants were notified of the
public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff, including City engineers,
neighbors and applicant's engineer and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal,
including neighbors at 38 Eastfield Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive. Objection to the proposed modifications
and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road and 12 Outrider
Road.
Section 6. The City Council finds that additional information is required before a final
decision may be issued regarding two aspects of the project: 1) Variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130
to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade and 2) Site Plan Review approval of stairs providing access to
the electrical room (collectively referred to as the "Deferred Items"). However, the Deferred Items are
physically distinct from the balance of the requested approvals and deferral of their final resolution
should not preclude the applicant from commencing development in reliance on the remaining approvals
in the interim. Therefore, the City Council's action in Zoning Case No. 862 at this time does not include
Resolution No. 1172
the Deferred Items, whose final disposition is hereby deferred until the applicant has complied with the
following:
A. The applicant is directed to work with the appropriate County personnel to identify
alternative methods of grading that would bring the rear slope as close to 2:1 grade as
possible, and present the alternatives to the Planning Director.
B. Identify alternative methods of access to the electrical room that would eliminate the
proposed stairs, including alternate grading, and present the alternatives to the Planning
Director.
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. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the Planning Commission to require a
site plan review for any future construction on the lot, regardless of whether a site plan review would
ordinarily be applicable to such construction. This project received such a condition during previous
reviews of the development. With respect to the modification of the Site Plan for more grading, lowering
the garage finished floor, additional covered porches, lowering of the driveway, additional retaining wall
along the driveway, electrical room addition outside of the footprint of the basement, reduction of the
size of the building pad area, lowering of a portion of the basement for a wine cellar, relocation of the
set aside area for fixture stable and corral and reduction of the swimming pool 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 except that a variance is requested for a 3' -
5' high retaining wall in the side setback. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for
development purposes. With two frontages, a large area of the lot is lost to roadway easements. The size
of proposed structures will be 7,922 square feet, which constitutes 19.97% 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 11,485 square feet which equals 29.0% of the net lot, which is within the 35%
maximum overall lot coverage permitted. A pervious surface will be provided for the motor court and
the driveways, which will aid in drainage of the lot and storm water management. The proposed project
is screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development.
B. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was
determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental tq
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed largely on
an existing building pad or within the residence, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will
be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, are of sufficient distance from nearby residences so
that they 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. In
addition, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and
are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The
proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence, and is a
modification only.
C. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot
by minimizing building coverage because the modifications to 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. The proposed
modifications are minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project.
D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought -tolerant 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.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety
of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous
situation where currently one driveway approach separates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield
Resolution No. 1172 2
and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed
circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway.
F. 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 for
59.4% disturbance of the net lot area, the City Council finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone because
the topographic nature of the subject property is such that the slope above the garage must be regarded
to accommodate the relocated service yard and the lowering of the garage and driveways, in order to
retain the previously approved 5' high retaining wall along that portion of the building pad. The
additional grading at the south side of the residence (in the side yard setback) is necessary to allow for a
walkway around the residence, as it is required by the Zoning Code. The grading complies with other
applicable development standards of the Building Code. Per the Zoning Ordinance, such grading of
slopes is considered disturbance and when added to the previously approved variance for disturbance of
49.8%, the total disturbance would be 59.4%. Additionally, due to the configuration of the property,
which fronts on two streets, 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, against which the disturbance is calculated. These factors
and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.070.
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 because the method of construction, previous approvals of this project and the current
modifications to the structures and walls to accommodate neighbors' request to relocate the service yard
and allow for a flat area around the side of the residence also has an impact on the disturbed area.
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 development proposes to improve slope stability and to augment and correct the existing water
flow pattern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requested by a neighbor, additional
grading of the slope above the driveway, near the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat
area and provide access to the trash service vehicles as well as provide a flat area on the side of the
residence.
D. 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 mostly due to the topography and nature of the lot and is required in
order relocate the service yard and lower the garage area, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant, as the grading is necessary
to comply with the city's requirements and grading standards of the Building Code.
F. 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 because there
is no hazardous waste facilities at issue in this case.
Section 10. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.150 F and G is required because it
states that maximum height walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height and walls 3 -feet high or higher, except
Resolution No. 1172 3
under certain circumstances, may not be located in setbacks. In addition, Section 17.12.020 states that
basements are defined as a floor level below the first story of the primary residence, which includes
garage. The applicant requests Variances for a basement electrical room outside the first story of the
residence, and a retaining wall not to exceed 2' to 5' high to encroach up to 9' into the south side yard
setback. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this
property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The property is unique in
that it is narrow and terraced with a relatively small building pad, where the terrain slopes quite
drastically to a lower portion of the lot. Due to the narrowness of the lot and the location of the residence
at the 20' side yard setback line, in order to meet the City's requirement that a level path be provided
around a residence, the applicant requests to level out an area in the side setback to gain access around
the first level of the residence. To accomplish this path a not to exceed 2' to 5 ` high retaining wall is
necessary, which is to be located up to 9 feet in the side yard setback. A portion of this wall existed prior
to construction of the new residence and was approved to remain when the original application for this
project was being considered.
Due to the narrowness and steepness of the lot and the location of the residence, it is difficult to
find an area for electrical facilities. This house warrants a large electrical facility and the electrical
company prefers that it be readily accessible for servicing. Short of placing the electrical room inside the
residence, which would not be accessible to utility company employees, there is no other place to locate
such a facility.
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. The proposed construction is intended to meet City requirement to
provide a path along the entire perimeter of the residence and provide a permanent solution for access to
the electrical utility boxes.
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
wall in the side setback will be screened by vegetation and provides access around the residence. The
proposed construction 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.
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, where the
topography of the lots constrain certain development, where the letter of the law cannot be met. The
requested construction, subject to this Variance is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances
applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with certain
sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. 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 grants partial approval of a Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 862,
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 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.
Resolution No. 1172 4
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 conformance with the site plan on file
in the City Planning Department dated March 19, 2015.
E. This project including all hardscape and driveways 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. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan
check review must conform to the plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of
final plans to the Building Department for issuance of grading and construction permits, the plans for
the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the
plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be
printed on the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Department for plan check review and on all
subsequent plans, including job site plans. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the
Building and Safety Department based on the new scope of the project, as approved herein. Additional
evaluation of the project by the Building Department staff and additional permit fee may be required
and shall be paid by the applicant.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,922 square feet or 20.0% in conformance with
structural lot coverage limitations and includes a 450 sq.ft. future stable.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,220 square feet or
28.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. The size of the electrical room located outside the footprint of the residence, below the
loggia, shall not be greater than 48 square feet. The size of the structures shall be measured from the
outside walls of the structure. There shall be no access from the interior of the electrical room to the
basement area, except to the light well.
I The entire motor court and area adjacent to the entryway, as well as the driveways shall
have a pervious surface. Manufacturer specifications shall be submitted to the City for the material
verifying that by industry standards the surface utilized for this area is considered permeable.
K. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway
approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property, 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.
L. Prior to obtaining a grading permit for the construction of the two new driveway
approaches on 38 Eastfield Drive property all new easements needed for the driveways and quit claims
of old easements shall be approved by the RHCA and recorded.
M. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 23,648 square feet or 59.3% in
conformance with disturbed area limitations and the Variance granted herein, including the stable, corral
pad and access.
N. Residential building pad coverage on the 12,386 square foot residential building pad shall
not exceed 6,963 square feet or 55.6%, not including 509 square feet of the covered porch.
O. Grading for the entire project shall not exceed 6,479 cubic yards of dirt total. Export of
the dirt from the basement is allowed and shall not exceed 3,418 cubic yards. Grading for the new
driveways at 38 Eastfield shall not exceed 185 cubic yards of cut and 305 cubic yards of fill. The
balance of dirt shall be taken from the construction site at 40 Eastfield Drive. Final grading shall be
certified by a third party engineer, selected by the City, at the applicant's expense.
P. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall along the
residential building pad located west and southwest of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet
Resolution No. 1172 5
at any one point from the finished grade, except that the wall surrounding the trash enclosure may be 6
feet in height.
Q. The retaining walls along the new driveways in the front setback at 38 and 40 Eastfield
Drive shall not exceed a maximum of five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade and
shall step down to a curb at the start of the driveways (closest to Eastfield Drive). Additional wall not to
exceed 35 feet in length and between 3' high and a curb is hereby approved along the driveway. The
driveway may be re -graded and lowered as shown on the grading plan dated February 24, 2015 as
reviewed by the Fire Department.
R. The main residence finished floor shall be at 1077 feet elevation. The garage finished
floor elevation shall also be at 1077. The residence basement shall be at 1063 FF, except that the wine
cellar may be 3' lower. The garage basement shall be at 1067 FF. The height of the residence shall not
exceed 17 feet from the 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.
S. Other than the area for the electrical room, the void space between the wall of the living
portion of the basement and the outer wall under the footprint of the loggia not be converted to a usable
space and shall remain empty and unoccupied space at all times.
T. 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.
The applicant shall fund a third party independent engineer, selected by the City, to meet this
requirement. The applicant provided a cash deposit for third party certification, as required by the
previous approval, for the scope approved previously. Should additional costs be required for
certification of the additional scope of work approved herein, including additional grading, the applicant
shall deposit additional funds with the City.
U. The proposed pool and spa shall not exceed 458 square feet as measured along the water
line.
V. 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.
W. 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:
httn://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.nhn?suite=safety&nage=hazard definitions#FIRE
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag
warning conditions.
X. 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, except that due to its location against the proposed 5' high
retaining wall, the rear wall may be 5' in height. 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.
Y. 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.
Z. 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. The
Planning Commission shall review any future development or construction. Construction of a
stable, if requested, shall be subject to the Municipal Code requirements at the time of the request.
AA. 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 any time shall not exceed the ridge height
of the residence. The basement light wells and the back wall of the basement, (fronting Outrider), shall
Resolution No. 1172 6
be screened by plants. In addition, all graded areas shall be landscaped to prevent erosion. At planting all
shrubs and trees, if any, at planting time shall be a minimum of 15 gallon in size or larger.
AB. Two copies of landscaping and irrigation plans for the property, including all slope areas
and reconstructed staging and stock piling areas and the temporary construction driveway, shall be
submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the
additional grading. 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. If any trees are planted, they shall be of such species as
not to grow higher than the ridgeline of the residence.
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. 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.
AE. 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.
AF. 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.
AG. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan
containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2013 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building
Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water
pollution.
AH. 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.
Al. 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.
AJ. 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.
AK. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and
clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, 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.
AL. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction
shall be staked during the entire construction process.
AM. The temporary construction driveway, off of Outrider Road shall be restored to its pre -
construction contours and a third party civil engineer shall certify the restoration.
Resolution No. 1172 7
AN. 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 serving 40 Eastfield shall be removed.
AO. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements.
AP. 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.
AQ. There shall be no internal access from the garage basement to the house basement.
AR. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan
Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective.
AS. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading
or building permit from the Building and Safety Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2015.
B. ALLEN LAY
MAYOR
ATTEST:
(PlAw
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
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.
Resolution No. 1172 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1172 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING PARTIAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE
MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO.
862 AT 44 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91 -EF), ROLLING HILLS CA, (TONSICH).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 23, 2015 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Dieringer, Hill, Pieper and Mayor Lay.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
/.1:&yIM;1I��r rem
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
44�'
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1172 9