2016-04 RESOLUTION N4. 2016-Q4
A RESQLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RQLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW F4R A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETATNING WALLS; A
CONDITIO�TAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIOTV TO THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE-CAR PARKING PAD �LESS THAN 3Q FEET
FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GAAAGE AND WALL
ENCR4ACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT O� GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5-FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, {LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT}.
THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND,RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr, and Mrs. Bennett wr�th respect to real
property Iocated at 3 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 58-EF} requesting a Site Plan Review
for grading(21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and crea�e a one car parking pad and up to
5` high retaining wa11s and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP} for xeplacexnent of the exis�ing
detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage and variances
that include: 1} to construct a 195 square foot addition to the main residence of which 61 sq. £t.
would encroach 6'3" into the hont setback, 2} to provide a new one-car parking pad, Iess than
3Q feet from the roadway easement line, 3) to encroach �8' into the front yard setback with the
detached garage, 4) to exceed the maxim�m permitted structural and total coverage of the lot
and the disfixrbed area of the Iot, 6) ta Iocate 5' high retaining wall in the front sefback, that
will not average out #0 2.�' in height an� 7� to re�or2str�ct the garage with an out of grade
condition.
Section 2. �l'he Planning Commission conduc�ed du�y noticed public hearings to
consider the application at a regular meeting on Decerriber 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 and
at a field trip to the property on January 19, 201b. Several neighbors were present at the
meetings, and one neighbor was present at the field tarip. The applicant was notified of �he
public hearings in wri�ing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons in�erested in a££ecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and siudied said proposal. The applicant's
representative was in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.)
and 44,413 sq. ft. net lot a�rea for development purposes. The properiy is located on the noxth
side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is characterized by
a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front) diagonally to northeast corner
Reso.2016-04
3 East£ield Drive �
(rear). The topography in the front yard betvveen the road edge and house front wall has a
drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project site is developed with a single family
�residence and detached garage built in 1956.
In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addxtion,
waiving the then required 3Q faot front setback in favor of 23-feet, in recognition of the
constraints of the steep terrain and £act that the detached garage already encroached 7 feet into
the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a tennis courf,
allowing the court to encroach into fhe side yard.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental. review under the
Califomia Environmental Qualify Act.
Section 5. Section ].7.4b.030 requires a development p7an to be submitted for Site
Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or
structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing
buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by more than 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. With
respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new
detached garage, grading, and retaining walls, the Planning Corrunission makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed developmenf is compatible with the General PIan, the Zoning
Ordinance and suxrou�.ding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General
Plan requirement of Iow profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The homes in the neighborhood are similar in size to
the proposed home on smaller lots. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage
and exis�ing total coverage already and with the proposal the increase for both will be
manimal. �e �xoposed gx�ading anc� retaining walls wi11 be minor in amount and d�gree and
will not alter the existing character and residential use an the property or of the surrounding
neighbo�rhoad, nor will existing contours of the property be significantly altered. Existing
landscaping will be preserved inciuding one large pine tree in the front yard, and a11 otherwise
native vegetation on the property will be prese�rved and the walls screened.
B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot by nv�zumizing building caverage because the new structure will not cause the lot fo
iook overdeveloped. Sigtvficant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
open space on the property. The proposed motor court, wlvle within the front yard setback,
will be screened behind and at the bottam of a slope, which is consxstenf with the nattxral
topography. The proposed retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the existing
topography. The encroachmex�t af the garage into the front setback wi�l be less than the
existing garage encroachmenf and is constrained by the Iocation of the existing house and
building pad, wh�ch, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and
towards the rear o€ the building pad. The amount of new livi.ng area being added within the
Reso.201b-04
3 Easifield Drive 2
front setback will nat create any adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be a relativelp
srr►a1I area, is under an existing overhang and will not be visible fron�the street at the lot front.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmoruous in scale and mass
with the site, the na�ural terrain and surrounding residences. The lot and house are similar to
adjacent lots and residences and the garage will be screened via a retaining wall and
landscaping on the side and rear.
D. The development plan incarporates existing trees and is screened from other
properties and the road by existing vegetation, which will be preserved. Every attempt will be
made to retain a large existing pine txee in the fronf setback close in proximity to the propased
retaining wall.
E. The developmen�plan follows to the maximum extenf practicable contours of the
site to minimize g�rading and retain the natural drainage courses. The proposed grad'zng and
retaining walls will be minor in amount. The dirt from the excavation of the srnall parking
pad will be utilized to construct the retaining wall surrounding the new garage, so that
grading will be balanced on site. The graded areas will be landscaped.
F. The proposed development is sensitive arid na� detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be
ufilized and the new driveway configuration wi11 promote safety as it will allow residents to
drive directly into the garage from the street. The proposed parking pad and space wi11 a11ow
more parking on-site as the site is currently cor�trained far on-site parking.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is exempt.
Sectian 6. Section 27.16.210(A)(4) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a detached garage �znder �ertain candxti�ns, provided the Planning Comt�ission
approves a Conditional Use Perxnit. The applicant xs requesting to constrvct a 704 square foot
detached garage. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commi.ssion finds as follows:
A. The gran�ing of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the garage structure
would be consistent with the purposes and obj�ctives of the Zoning O�dinance and General
Plan because the use xs consis�ent with simi�ar uses in the community and is a permitted use
with a CUP. The area proposed for such structure would not require substantial grading, and
such use will not make the lot overdeveloped. The proposed detached garage is in the same
Iocation as the existing detached garage and in a location best suited for the garage, as there is
no othex area to place a garage. The proposed location will not interfere with the location o�
the residence.
B. 'The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures have b�en considered, and the detached structure will not adversely affect or be
Reso.2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive 3
materially detrirnental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the side and rear
portions of proposed use will be partially screened from view by a retaining wall and
Iandscaping and is of sufficient d�stance fram nearby residences so that the struct�xre wi11 not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The out-of-grade condit�on of the
proposed garage wzll be buffered with a retaining wall and Iandscaping fa soften the irnpact.
C. The pro�ect is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences because the detached garage structure will cornply with the low
profi�e residential development pattern of the community, there is adequate area on the
property fo cons�ruct such a 450 square foot stable, and the project would not take away an
area for equestrian development in the�uture.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolutian, because it is a permitted use
under the Municipal Code.
Sec�ion 7. Sectians 17.38.010 through 17.38.U5U of fhe Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when excep�ional. or extrao�dinary circumstances applicable to the property
prevent the owner from making �se of a parcel of property to �he same extent enjoyed by
similar properties in the same vicinity or zone.
A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F, 17.16.Q$0 and 17.16A60 because the
project exceeds the allowed maximum average af wail height of 2.5-feet of both the free
standing wall and the walls of the proposed garage and the front parking pad wali, portion o�
the residence addition and portion of the detached garage would be locafed in setbacks.
A Variance to Section 17.060.070 is also required because fihe maximum distwrbed area is not to
exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed ma�cimum disturbance wifih 43.4%, and the
proposed �otal structural and tofai lot coverage area would exceed the allowed amounts with
an increase froin 24.1% to 25.9% where 2Q% maximum is allowed for strucfural coverage, and
an increase from 36.7% to 41.1% where 35% maxim�ar_�total�ot coverage i� allowed.
With respect to the aforementianed requests for Variances, the Planning Commission
£inds as follows:
A. Thex�e are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as
follows:
Regarding requested variance relating to fhe height and encroachment into the setback
for the proposed re�aining wall: the proposed �-foot retaining wall in the front yard will n�atch
the upward slope and wil.I blend in with the natural slope and will not be seen from the street.
The sloping condition at the front o� the lot in thi.s area makes a retaining wall necessary to
pratect the proposed new outdoor car-port. The addition, of which 61 square feet wi11
encroach into the front setback is minimal, given that almost half of the residence and most of
the existing garage encroach into the front setback due to the configuration and steepness o€
the lot. The addition will b� almast en�irely under an exiting roof line and not visible from the
street. The encroachment of the proposed garage will follow the same footprint as the existing
Reso.2016-04 4
3 Eastfield Drive
garage, but 7 feet less and will provide satex ingress and egress onto the p�roperty. The out of
grade condition o£the proposed garage w�I be within the footprint of the existing garage and
wi�I not be exacerbated by the new construction. The steepness and configuration of the lot
makes it unpossible to meet the code requirement and provide fo�r a garage on the �ot. The
visual impact of the ouf of grade candition of the garage will be mi�igated by the construction
of a terraced wall and landscaping in front of t�hi.s condition.
Regarding the requested variances from Section 17.1b.070, relating to maximum
structural and total lot coverage lirnits and disturbance of the lot: the propex�y is uniquely
const-rained by an existing tenxus court on the property, and by the steep topography both at
the front and the rear of the bui�ding pad. The lot coverage is relatively small compared to
the amount of coverage that is associated with the irnpxovements, specifically �he existing
6,433 square foot sports court. The proposed additional disturbance to provide more on-site
parkin� and to widex�the driveway is minimal and will result in beiter vehicle access. To the
maximum extent practicable the proposed developxnent works within and follows the
existing cond'ztions on�he lot.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property awners in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question by stricf application of the code. The property right which
otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of the front yard for on-site
parking, and superior access and entry/exit to the garage than currently exists.
C. The gran�ing of the Variance would not be matexially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the properties or irnprovements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located in that the proposed on-site parking space and reconfigured garage access
increa.ses safety to the residents and neighborhood as it allows for dixect access from the
street. Fur�her, the increased on-site parking is necessaxy as parking on Eastfie�d Drive is
greatly needed and constrained on this stretch of the road. Additionally, the improvements
to the property (additional parlcing spac�, ret�ni.ng wa11, residential aci�iition, and garage)
will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are
minor. To the maximum exfent prac�icable the proposed development works within and
follows the existing condifions on the lof and therefore will not be materially or otherwzse
deiximental to the public.
D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that the p;roposed parking pad, retaining wall, and garage, and small residential
addition consfruction will be orderly, attractzve, and while the garage has an out-of-grade
condition, it will be buffered and mediated with landscaping and a wall to ensure it wxll not
affect the rural character of the community. The subject property retains a suitable stable and
corral se�-as'rde area and tlie proposed garage and addition will no� impact use of these
existing structures.
E. The Variance requesf is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
HiIIs because the proposed structux�es comply with the General Plan requirement of low
Reso.2016-Q4
3 Eastfield Drive 5
profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures.
F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing £zndings in Sections 5, 6, and 7, the Plaruvng
Cornrnission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application, Conditional Use Perntit and
Variances in Zoning Case No. 892 for minor grading and construction of a residence addition,
a detached garage, a new one-car parking space, and refaining walls as shown on the Site PIan
dated January 29,20�6 subject to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all constructian
p�ans and shall be at aI1 times available at the construction site.
B. The Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals shall
expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this
approval has not commenced within thaf time pe:riod, as required by Sections 17.46.080{A),
17.42.q70(A) and 17.38A7Q(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval gxanted is
otherwise ex�ended pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that zf any conditions thereof
are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges gxanted hereunder shall
lapse; provided that the applicani� 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 applxcant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination,
D. A11 requirements of �lie Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and
of the zone in which the subject property i.s located must be complied with, including the
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise
on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility Iines serving the subject property shall be
undergrounded pzars�zanf to Section 17.27.030.
E. The lot shall be developed and mainta.ined in substantial conformance with the
site plan on fiIe dated January 29, 201b
F. The working drawings submitted �o the Department of Building and Safety for
plan eheck and cons�rtrct�an review r�tust confQrm to the dev��opment�Ian appraved�vitlz this
applica�ion. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for
i.ssuance of building 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 Plannisig Commission.
The licensed professional preparing con.struction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the pians conform in all
Reso.2016-04
3 Easffield Drive �
respects to this Resolution approving thzs project and all of the conditions set forth therein and
the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obta�ining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall
execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to
this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Grading sha11 not exceed a total of 21 cubic yard of cut and fill, which includes
the creation of a one-car motor court, to widen the driveway, and to rnediate the out of-grade
condition of the garage, and sha11 be balanced on site. Cut and fi11 slopes shall not exceed
steepness as shown on the development plan dated January 29, 2Q16. Prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Platining
Departm�nt
H. Structurallot coverage shall not exceed 11,574 square feet or 25.9% of the net Iot
ar�a, (excluding 75 sq.ft. allowed ancillary detached structures).
I Tota1 Iot coverage of struct�xres and paved areas shall not exceed 18,241 square
feet, including the widened driveway and the motor court or 41.1% of net lot area (with
deductions).
J. The retaining wall along the motor court and driveway ma� not exceed 5 feet in
height a� any ane poin� from the finished grade. The retaining walls flanking the detached
garage may not exceed 5 feet in height, sloping to 0 feet, with 2.5 feet average, for
approximately �4 feet in length total.
K. The dist�xrbance of the net lot sha11 not exceed 19,260 square €eet of surface area
or 43.4%.
L. Residen#ial building pad caverage or. the 5,R08 squar� feet reszdentia� buildimg
pad shall not exceed 8�.$%. The stable/sports court building pad shall remain at 7,79Q square
feet with coverage or 82.6%, which includes the sports court.
M. A minimum of four-foot 1eve1 path and/or walkway, which does not have to be
paved,shall be p�ovided around the entire perimeter of the garage.
N. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy or any cooking
facilities in the detached garage. The detached garage shall not exceed 704 square feet as
measured from the outside walls, and may contain a toilefi and a sink.
O. Should the detached garage as specified on the approved plan be converted to
another use, without required approvals, the permit granting the detached garage may be
revoked, pursuan� to Chapter 17.58, and the structure may have to be removed at the cost of
the property owner.
Reso. 20I6-04
3 Eastfield Drive 7
P. A fuel modi£ication plan, a landscape plan, and an irrigation pIan prepared by a
registered landscape architect, landscape designer, landscape con�ractc�r, or an individual with
expertise acceptable to the �arestry division of the fire department shall be submitted and
approved by the City, including for screening of the north eastern portions of the detached
garage. •
Q. A11 graded areas shall be vege�tated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible
mature native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent with
the ruraY character of the community and meet the fire department requiremenfs for fixe
resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used ix� the Iandscaping scheme for this project sha11 be
planted in a way that will not resu�t in a hedge like scxeening and as not to impair views of
neighboring propexties but to screen the project site.
R. Every ef£ort will be made to refain the large existing pine tree at the front of the
property that is shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department on January 29,
2016. ,
S. The property owners sha11 be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills and
RHCA roofing material standards, Outdoor Lighting Standards, as well as a11 other
requirements of the Municipal Code.
T. Minimum of �0% of the constructian material spoils shall be recycled and
diverted.'The hauler must be licerts�d by the City, must have �he appropriate insurance and
rnust provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
U. There sha11 be no dumping of any debris, firash, soil spoils, construction materials
or any other matter into the canyons.
V. The property lines, easement lines and setbacks,where possible, in the vicinity of
the a�reas of cons�rucHon, shall be delineated d�ring t�he entire duration of the construction and
no grading, construction or storage of any objects including building materia�s shall take place
in�lie easement,unless approved by the RHCA.
W. During coxtistruction, the pxoperty owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related tra££ic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM
and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipanent
noise is permitted, sv as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the �ity of
Rolling Hi11s.
X. During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or
idle at the project site ar in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of
operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles
during construction shall be an site.
Reso.2016-44
3 Easi:field Drive 8
Y, The con�ractors and subcontractors are to encourage their employees to car-pool
into the City.
Z The applicant shall comply with requirement�s for bonding for grading and all
other requirements resulting from the review of the soils and geology reports.
AA. I�To drainage device may be Iocated in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement,trail or adjacent properties.
AB. During construction, conformance with the air quality managernent district
requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue
vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. The grading act�vities shall be watered on a
daily basis, or more often, if necessary.
AC. The paroperty owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMPs) related to solid waste and storm management, including post construction
maintenance of stormwater facilities.
AD. An Erosion Control Plan, if required by the building department, shall be
prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storxn water
pollution as�requixed by the Code.
AE. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible
for compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
AF. The contractor sha11 not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found
at ��'+�..���.����r��'�r��"���i�ii'��a,�i���„�a��'��d�� .�,�i�� i�'�r g��7�'�� �"��� '��`�" `���� �'�.����� ��;�,I��,.�.�.�;€��������4g It
� _�e_.� "� _�_,.. ��.. r, �
, . � ._,_...,,., m.� . .� _....,—�v d______ _
is th� sole respon.sibzXity of. the pxo�ex�y own�r and/or his/hex contrac�or to rnonitor fih� red
flag warning condition5.
AG. Until fhe applicants execute and recard an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review, Conditianal Use Permit and Variance approvals, as
requixed by the Municipal Cade, the approvals shall not be effective.
AH. A11 conditions of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building
permit.
AI. Nofwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.4b.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any future modifica�ions ta the property ar to this project, which wauld
constitute additional grading, height or any structural development shall require the filing
of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
Reso.2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive �
AJ. Any action challenging the final decision of the City rnade as a result o€ the
public hearing on this applicatian must be filed wi�hin the fime lixnits set forth in Section
17.�4.070 of the Rolling Hil1s Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY 4F R Y 20 6.
B EL`�, C RM
ATTEST:
I
HEIDI LUCE,CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-04
3 EastfiEld Drive �a
STATE OF CALIFORiVIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF 124LLING HILLS }
I certi€y that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTTNG APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FO12 A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAIIVING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TQ CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITTON T� THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE-CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET
FROM THE R�ADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
COIVD�ON OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5-FEET, TQ EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERIVIITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL C4VERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE I�T�. $92, AT 3 EAS'TFIELD DRIVE, �I.OT 58-E�, (BENNETT'}.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planniilg Comn�ission on February 16,
201b the following roll call vo#e:
AYES: Commissioners Cardena.s,Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chaixman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Smith.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso.2U1(r04
3 Eastf�eld Drive 11