1180 Tonsich RESOLUTIOI\N0. 1180
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN
ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD IDRIVE (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 �ew singie family residence and related development. In August 2014, khe
applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally
approved project. The request for modification included 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 feeC into the side yard setback,two additional porches,lowering of the driveway
and the garage by two feet a�d 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,
reducing 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%, relocating the service yard,constructing outside stairs
to the basement from the house level, constructing a� electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the
first story, relocating the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the
disturbance of the lot, and re-construction of the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road)
which would exceed 2:1 grade.
ection 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of gradi�g 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 squaze foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (iacluding underneath the gazage), 646
square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 squaze foot swimming
pool including a spa, off site gradiog for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic
yards of fill,constmction of over 3 foot high wails along t6e driveways and walls that would exceed 2 �
feet average height, disCurbance 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 Dme.
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 approva) of the request in Zoning Case No. 862,
the City Council at its January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section
17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review heazing for cases taken under jurisdiction by
the City Council shall be conducted as de �ovo hearings.
Section 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application
on February 9, 2015 in Yhe field and at its regularly scheduled meetings on February 9, 2015 and 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. Bvidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff, including City engineers,
neighbors and applicanYs 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 EastSeld 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. On March 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172, which
granted paRial approval of the requested Site Plan Review and Variance but deferred a final decision on:
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 1
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"). The City Council requested that the applicant take the following actions prior to its
rendering a decision on the Deferred Items:
A. Work with the appropriate County persounel to identify altemative 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 a7ternatives to the Planning
Director.
Section 7. The City Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the slopes below
the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to coaswction and as steep as 1.5:1.
Additionally, Chis portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, buY will be smoothed out
and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre-consUvction state.
Therefore, a Variance for these slopes is not required. The slope above the wall (between the basement
wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstrucCed to variable grades ranging from 2:l to
1.5:1 and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building
Depariment. A Variance in this area for siopes greater than 2:1 is required. The applicant has aiso
demonstrated that historically there were two level pads close to the rear roadway easement line and
they may be retained; one to be used for septic tank and seepage pits and one for a set aside area for a
future stable and cottal. This set aside area may be used as play area but shall not be paved in any
manner including sofY laid pavers or enclosed by a fence. The City Councii finds that the proposed
modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is miuor, the stairs will be in line with the
light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved
light wells. Therefore, the City Council approves the Deferred Items subject to the conditions set forth
herein.
Section 8. 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 Environmeneal 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. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the City to require a Site Plan Review
for any future construction on the lot, regazdless 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. The Deferred Items include Site Plan Review for modification of the stairs providing
access to the electrical room,for which the CiCy 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 modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan
is minor, Che stairs wil] be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project
further from the basement than the approved light wells. With the conditions, the proposed project wi11
be screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development.
B. The topography and the configuraCion of the lot has been considered, and iY was
determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental Co
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will occur lazgely on an
existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screeoed and
landscaped with trees and shmbs, is of safficient distance from nearby residences so Chat 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. 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 a�d 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 aze minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project.
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 2
D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought-tolerant landscaping,
which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the communiry, and the landscaping will
provide a buffer or transition area between private and public azeas.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimenYal 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 sepazates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield
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 10. The Deferred Items include a variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to
authorize a slope steeper tha� 2:1 grade. Sections 17.38910 through 17.38.050 of the RHMC permit
approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to
exceptional or extraordinary circumsYances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone, strict application of t6e RHMC would deny the property owner substantial
property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity aod zone. Additional findings are also
required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for a slope steeper than 2:1
grade,the City Council finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditious applicable to the
property that do �ot apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the property
historically contained steep and varied slopes. Specifically,the slopes below the proposed retaining wall
were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. This portion of the property will not be
regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to
bring it back to its pre-constmction state. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the
2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 for
consistency with Yhe existing slopes on the property and will be regraded to provide for stability to the
house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance is required because the resulting
slopes will be steeper than 2:1. The grading of the slopes is necessary to accommodate the relocated
service yazd 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 Che 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 standazds of the
Building Code. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section
15.04.130.
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 additional grading is necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the
topography to its pre-construction state.
C. The grantiog 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 siope stability and to augment and correct the existing water
flow patCern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requesCed by a neighbor,
additional grading of the slope above the driveway, neaz 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 Zo�ing Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion
and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of Yhe General Plan. Approval of the vaziance
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 steeper slopes requested are necessary to restore the stabiliYy of the slopes and restore the
topography to its pre-construction state, 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 standazds of the Building Code.
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 3
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 tt�ere
is no hazardous waste facility at issue io this case.
Section ll. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the recard, the City
Council hereby grants approval of the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 862 described
as Deferred Items in Resolution No. 1172, 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 ot6erwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of this section.
B. Except as specified, this resolution does not alter the approvals set forth in Resolution
No. 1172 and all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 1172 continue to apply to the subject property.
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 applica�t fails to correct the violation within a period of Chirty (30) days from the date of the Ciry's
determination.
C. The project subject to this Resolution, (the deferred items), shall be developed and
maintained in cooformance wiCh the site plan on file in the City Planniag Department stamp dated
August 5,2015.
40 Eastfield - LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS
D. The landscaping for this project shall be provided aod maintained in substantial
conformance with the landscaping pian on file in the City Hall dated October 7, 2015, except as
otherwise provided herein.
E. The two Purple Plum trees, shown on the landscaping plan, which are located north west
of the Motor Court at 40 Eastfield shall �ot be planted and the existing Ficus Trees ]ocated between the
properties at 38 and 40 Eastfield, also north west of the Motor Court, shall not at any time exceed the
cunent height of 14' as measured from the ground at 38 Eastfield Drive. Any new trees, which are
shown to be located in any easement shall be approved by the RHCA.
F. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low
gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controliers, 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.
Further,the landscaping shall be designed using large size vegetation from the onset and they shall be of
a type so as �ot to grow into views from neighboring properties but to obscure to Yhe ma�cimum extend
practicable the residence, the parking uea the light well walls, the rear sCairs, the retaining wall and the
reaz slopes from the neighbors and from Outrider Road. The trees and shrubs when grown, shall not
exceed the ridge height of the residence, except as specified elsewhere in this resolution. At planting
time all shrubs and trees shall be a minimum of I S gallon in size or larger, and all ground cover or small
bushes shall be no smaller than 5 gallon in size or equivaleot.
The placement of any new vegetation shall be in such a manner as to not grow into a living screen or a
hedge, and must be off set. Should the existing trees die, the applicant shall be required to immediately
replace such trees with a minimum of 60" box tree or equivalent to assure that the propeRy is screened
at all times. If any of the Ficus trees die, they are to be replaced witb a like Yree not less than 24" box.
Should such trees be located in the RHCA easement,RHCA review and approval shall be required.
G. The Ficus Trees located in the easement between 38 and 40 Eastfield shall be removed if
prior to obtaining a final inspection of the project they have not been approved by the RHCA. Similar
trees, subject to conditions of this Resolution, shall be planted outside the easement on the Tonsich's
property to screen the project from the neighbors at 38 Eastfield.
H. The applicant shall post with the City a landscaping bond or equivalent instrument to be
held to up Co five-years from the time of planting in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor,material
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 4
4
and irrigation), pius 15% of the cost, to be refunded only if it is determ�ned that the landscaping is in
good condition and meets the intent of the resolution.
Staff shall review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that
the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in this resolution, a portion of the
bond would be refunded; then three years later staff shall inspect the site again to determine the
condition of the (andscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded only if it is determined that
the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval.
-- I. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval,
or the approval shall not be effective.
J. 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 12T"DAY OF OCT ER,2015.
J F PIEPER
MAYOR
ATTEST:
�z
1�°�������,�����i.'��.�
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 withi❑ the time limits set forth in section 17.54.0'70 of the Rolling Hills
Muoicipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1180 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN
ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELB DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING
HILLS CA,(TONSICH). .
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 12, 2015 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper.
NOES: Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the followiug:
Administrative Offices.
�������F����,�� i
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 6