Loading...
Planning Commission Meeting 01-19-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Terry McDonald and Cecelia, 10 Bowie Road (tenants). Jack Ng, 10 Bowie Road (applicant's representative). Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Greg Keenan, Keenan Development. Tony lnferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumich, Designer. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA City Manager Cruz introduced the City's new Assistant City Attorney, Natalie Karpeles. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15, 2015, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 15, 2015. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. December 15, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted two typographical errors in the minutes. Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 15, 2015 as corrected. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS Request to amcnd Resolution No. 2010-03 to remove a condition of "no further development without Planning Commission review" at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, (Dennee). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Commissioner Cardenas recused himself from consideration of this item due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to have the "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition removed from Resolution No. 2010-03 in a project previously approved with certain conditions at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. She reviewed the constraints on the property as well as the background regarding why the "no further development" condition was originally placed on the Resolution, stating that the previously approved project was not constructed and the entitlement has since expired. She stated that the applicant currently proposes to construct a 108 sq. ft. addition to the residence, which could be approved administratively if not for the "no further development" condition. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the request. He stated that he feels that if the entitlement expired then the "no further development" condition should have also expired. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a REVISED Resolution to remove the "No further development without Planning Commission review" condition on Resolution No. 2010-03 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Cardenas retumed to the dais. RESOLUTIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review for a detached garage, grading and a 5' high retaining wall; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 704 square foot detached garage; and Variances to construct 61 sq. R. addition to the residence in the front setback, a new one -car parking pad to be located closer than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, to locate the garage partially within the front yard setback, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and to locate a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfield Drive (Lot 58-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Bennett). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class I exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She reviewed the proposed lot coverage stating that the existing lot coverage exceeds the maximums and with the proposed improvements, the numbers will increase. She stated that during the site visit, it was discovered that a portion of the garage is currently constructed out of grade and with the improvements, will be exposed by more than 5 ft. which requires a variance and will need to be re -advertised and noticed. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request stating that he feels the out of grade condition of the garage can be addressed with a planter. Discussion ensued concerning the out -of -grade condition and ways to soften the appearance without impacting the existing Pine tree. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he feels the proposed project is an improvement but that the out -of -grade condition needs to be addressed. Commissioner Smith commented that she feels the property is crowded and overbuilt and does not meet the intent of the General Plan in that it does not feel "open and rural." Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Vice Chairman Gray commented that he feels the lot probably has too much development as it exists but since the improvements to the garage are being made in the existing footprint, it doesn't make it any more crowded. He stated that his only concern is the out of grade situation. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he feels the proposed changes improve access to the property and minimizes the visual impact from the street. Chairman Chelf commented that he too feels the proposed changes improve access and safety as well as visual impact from the street. He commented that he would like to see the out of grade condition softened. Following discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastficld Drive as amended to address the out of grade condition with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with 6,000 square foot basement, 848 square foot garage and ancillary structures, swimming pool, several not to exceed 5' in height retaining walls, grading of 8,248 cubic yards of cut and fill, and a new driveway; and Variances for: 1) portion of the house, service yard and two light wells to encroach into the rear setback; 2) a future stable and corral location in the front yard; 3) to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and the disturbed arca of the lot; 4) construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that exceed an average height of 2.5 feet and 5) to exceed the maximum permitted coverage of the front setback with a driveway in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the applicant has requested that consideration of this matter be continued. Recognizing that the item is on the published agenda, Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Terry McDonald and Cecelia, 10 Bowie Road (tenants) addressed the Planning Commission to request that the Planning Commission delay consideration of this case until their lease is up in May. In response to Mr. McDonald's request, Chairman Chelf commented that the Planning Commission has certain timelines that it must follow based on State law and as such, is not able to delay the proceedings. He further suggested that Mr. McDonald express their concerns to the property owner. Jack Ng addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owner to apologize that the property was not staked for the previously scheduled field trip stating that they will work with the realtors that are handling the lease to ensure that any issues with the tenants are resolved prior to rescheduling the field trip. ' Consideration of this item was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 10 Bowie Road. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels, having an APN: 7569-004-22 and 7569-004-23, into one parcel, which will result in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, as calculated by the City for development purposes in the RAS-I Zoning District, at 11 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, CA, (Warren). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305(a) (Lot line adjustment). ZONING CASE NO. 896. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and 324 square foot wine cellar, 9,300 cubic yards of grading, various walls, pool patio and pool deck, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance at 11 Saddleback Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that first request is for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two lots and the second is for development of the merged lots. In response to Chairman Chelf, Planning Director Schwartz stated that although they are two separate requests, they should be considered together. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and the development, which includes a new house, garage and pool as well as a stable and corral. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to rctain the existing access to the proposed stable. She stated that the proposed stable meets the Zoning Code requirements for stables. She further reviewed the proposed dressage arcna stating that variances are requested for it to be partially located in the front setback as well as to exceed the maximum disturbance. She then reviewed the proposed grading and other miscellaneous amenities proposed. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the applicant's request. She expressed the applicant's willingness to work with the Planning Commission to address the concern raised in the field regarding stable access. Brief discussion ensued concerning the access to the arena and stable. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is fine with the lot line adjustment and the proposed development; and his only concern would be the visual impact of the dressage arena from the road but he feels it is justifiable. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is concerned about the topography that will result from merging the two lots and he does not feel that it meets the intent of the General Plan given that there are 2:1 slopes around almost two-thirds of the property. He expressed further concem regarding the water flow from the property and suggested that the access path between the stable and the dressage arena be constructed with DG to eliminate the additional slopes. Commissioner Smith commented that she is delighted to see a property designed for equestrian use, but she is also concerned about the slopes and the grading. She too expressed concern regarding the access path between the stable and the dressage arena. Commissioner Cardenas commented that his biggest concern is the driveway to the stable and stated that he would prefer to see the entire surface be porous. He commented that he feels the grading will look very natural once it is complete. Chairman Chelf commented that he likes the project noting that the applicant loses an acre of the usable area because the street goes entirely around the property. He commented also that much of the grading is due to dressage arena and if not for the lot merger, that area could be developed with a house if it were left as two lots. Following discussion, two motions were made: Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 at 11 Saddleback Road as amended to soften the access to the stable and provided that the applicant addresses the issues related to SCE easement and the Los Angeles County restriction with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried with Vice Chairman Gray opposed. Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the applicant's request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels in Zoning Case No. 896-A at I I Saddleback Road with the standard findings of fact Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 a and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO. 888. Request for a Site Plan Review for 1,055 square foot addition, grading, and retaining walls and request for Variances to encroach with 585 sq.ft. of the addition, with a light well and retaining walls into the required front and side yard setbacks; for higher than allowed average height retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, on a property with a restricted development condition, in Zoning Case No. 888, at 17 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot 5 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Post). The project is located in the RAS-I Overlay Zone. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class I exemption. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and disclosed for the record that he had a conversation with the applicant encouraging him to not encroach into the easements. He then asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that since the agenda packet was delivered, an e-mail in support of the project was received and has been placed on the dais. She stated also that an amended site plan was received just before the meeting. She reviewed the original request as well as the Planning Commission's prior action in this case. She stated that the plan originally submitted for consideration tonight did not address all of the concerns that the Planning Commission raised the last time the matter was discussed; but after further consideration, the applicant submitted a revised plan just today that addresses the Planning Commission's concerns and shows that the wall originally proposed in the easement is no longer in the easement. She further reviewed the revised plan. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions. She stated the three walls previously proposed at the rear of the property were reduced to two walls and the walkway between was eliminated to address the Planning Commission's concern regarding massing and crowding. Regarding the addition, she explained that it was revised to be in line with the rest of the addition and the wall was moved out of the easement while still maintaining the 4 ft. walkway around the structure. Chairman Chelf expressed the Commission's appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Planning Commission's concerns and for moving the wall out of the easement. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that his primary concern was the wall in the easement and since that issue was addressed, he is okay with the rest of the project. Commissioner Cardenas commented that this was a difficult project where there was a lot of healthy debate but he respects the applicant for doing what was necessary to address the Commission's concerns. He stated that he is satisfied with the result. Commissioner Smith commented that she is still concerned about the steepness of the rear slope and the walls that are necessary to increase the pad to accommodate the pool. She stated that she still feels that the project does not maintain the natural topography. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he feels it was wise to move the wall out of the easement, but since he was not at the last meeting where this matter was discussed to hear the discussion and concerns, he will abstain from voting on this item. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as amended per the plan submitted at the meeting in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith opposed and Vice Chairman Gray abstaining. City Clerk Luce stated that she would provide the audio recording of the previous meeting so that Vice Chairman Gray can listen to the previous discussion. ZONING CASE NO. 893. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. (Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances at 66 Eastfield Drive, Thomas.) Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and a Variance to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to rctain a shed in side setback and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miller). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct at 1,835 sq. ft. addition, 150 sq. ft. of which encroaches into the front yard setback and raised deck in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive. She reviewed the existing site plan and structures on the lot stating that there is currently a code enforcement matter on the property that will have to be addressed as well. She reviewed the development standards stating that the structural lot coverage is proposed at 11.9% and the total lot coverage is proposed at 21%. She reviewed building pad and stated that there is no grading required for the addition and slight grading only for the deck. She stated that building pad coverage is proposed at 54.8%. She reviewed the disturbance stating that is currently non -conforming at 40.3% and will increase to 42.2% with the grading required for the deck, which requires a Variance. She reviewed the set aside area and access for a future stable and corral. Brief discussion ensued concerning the size of the garage. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Anthony Inferrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive. The public hearing was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,631 square foot single family residence, 1,308 square foot garage, 1,781 square feet covered porches, 950 square foot swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls and other miscellaneous accessory structures; grading for the new development and modification to a previously approved corral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patio into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -Al -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new 6,631 sq. ft. residence in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East. She reviewed the configuration of the lot stating the Planning Commission previously approved a lot line adjustment merging two lots, which resulted in the existing lot; and also approved a stable to be constructed in the front yard area. She further reviewed the applicant's request, which also includes two garages, covered porches as well as a swimming pool, spa and koi pond. She stated that the applicant proposes to retain an island of landscaping that currently exists in front of the house. She reviewed the proposed driveway as well a proposed modification of the walls in the area around the stable. She further stated that this project will be subject to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance (LID) which requires retention of the water on site and reviewed the proposed plan. She stated that the total lot coverage is proposed at 8.8% and the structural lot coverage is proposed at 3.8% on the nearly 10 -acre lot. She stated that the building pad area is proposed at 39,800 sq. ft. and with the stable, coverage is proposed at 38.2%. She further reviewed the proposed covered porches one of which is proposed to be located in the setback. She stated that to date, there have been no objections expressed by neighbors. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Brief discussion ensued concerning the portion of the covered porch that encroaches into the setback and the proposed driveway. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to explain the applicant's request. Geoff Sumich, Designer addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request and presented a model of the proposed house. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 10 Bowie Road 46 Eastfield Drive 77 Crest Road East NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Consideration of a Zoning Code amendment relating to prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, delivery, distributing and dispensaries within the City by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020, and adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). It has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AND Consideration to adopt Resolution No. 2016-01. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the Planning Commission for consideration is a proposed Zoning Code amendment that would ban cultivation, delivery, dispensing and other activities related to medical marijuana within the City boundaries. She stated that this proposed amendment is before the Planning Commission in response to recent legislation, collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), adopted by the State legislature that requires cities wishing to regulate medical marijuana activities within their jurisdiction to adopt specific regulations doing so by March 1" otherwise, the State regulations which are much more permissive would apply. City Manager Cruz stated that both Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and Councilmember Mirsch suggested that this matter be considercd by the Planning Commission recognizing that there is a narrow window of time for the City to take action. Discussion ensued concerning why this matter is before the Planning Commission rather than directly before the City Council. In response to Chairman Chelf, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that if the City does not act in regard to this matter, the State will be the sole licensing authority with regard to the cultivation of medical marijuana in the City of Rolling Hills. She stated that the amendment as proposed by the City Attorney's office represents the most restrictive regulations, but could be amended at a later date to be more permissive. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed regulations pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. She stated that she does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He stated that he also does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Discussion ensued concerning the effect this regulation would have on individuals in the City who are qualified patients and have a legal right to obtain medical marijuana. Ms. Karpeles clarified that this regulation would not prevent qualified patients from obtaining medial marijuana from fixed location dispensaries or qualified delivery services. She stated that the primary objective of the regulation is to ban mobile medical marijuana dispensaries from coming into the City to dispense medical marijuana. Further discussion ensued regarding personal cultivation. Ms. Karpeles clarified that the proposed regulation prohibits commercial cultivation and personal cultivation to the extent that such cultivation is not preempted by State law. The Planning Commissioners collectively expressed concern that they were not given enough time to give this matter due diligence. Further discussion ensued regarding the delivery mechanisms available to qualified patients. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concern that the term "commercial transfer" is not clearly defined. Ms. Karpeles provided an explanation of the term "commercial transfer." Following further discussion and recognizing the time constraints, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-01 recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City as amended to (1) provide a definition for the term "commercial transfer" and (2) provide for a delivery mechanism into the City for patients who need medical marijuana but cannot procure it for themselves. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. to an adjoumed regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 10 Bowie Road, 46 Eastfield Drive and 77 Crest Road East. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, pproved, B d Chelf airman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 41/ Heidi Luce City Clerk CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 15th day of January, 2016,1 serve the within Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Regular Meeting - 01/19/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: Emailed MAILED DROPBOX DELIVERED Assistant City Manager RH ListSery NONE City Attorney Planning Commission Also posted at City Hall and at www.Rolling-Hills.org I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 15ih day of January 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. EWA NIKODEM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT gerr istafsgeed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016 ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. December 15, 2015, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission B. December 15, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Request to amend Resolution No. 2010-03 to remove a condition of "no further development without Planning Commission review" at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, (Dennee). 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING A. ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review for a detached garage, grading and a 5' high retaining wall; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 704 square foot detached garage; and Variances to construct 61 sq. ft. addition to the residence in the front setback, a new one -car parking pad to be located closer than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, to located the garage partially within the front -1- yard setback, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and to locate a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfield Drive (Lot 58-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Bennett). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. B. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with 6,000 square foot basement, 848 square foot garage and ancillary structures, swimming pool, several not to exceed 5' in height retaining walls, grading of 8,248 cubic yards of cut and fill, and a new driveway; and Variances for: 1) portion of the house, service yard and two light wells to encroach into the rear setback; 2) a future stable and corral location in the front yard; 3) to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and the disturbed area of the lot; 4) construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that exceed an average height of 2.5 feet and 5) to exceed the maximum permitted coverage of the front setback with a driveway in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4- CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. C. (1). ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels, having an APN: 7569-004-22 and 7569-004-23, into one parcel, which will result in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, in the RAS-1 Zoning District, at 11 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, CA, (Warren). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305(a) (Lot line adjustment). (2). ZONING CASE NO. 896. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and ancillary structures, grading of 9,300 cubic yards cut and fill, various walls, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate portions of the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48- RH-2), (Warren). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. D. ZONING CASE NO. 888. Request for a Site Plan Review for 1,055 square foot addition, grading, and retaining walls and request for Variances to encroach with 585 sq.ft. of the addition, with a light well and retaining walls into the required front and side yard setbacks; for higher than allowed average height retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, on a property with a restricted development condition, in Zoning Case No. 888, at 17 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot -2- 5 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Post). The project is located in the RAS-1 Overlay Zone. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption. E. ZONING CASE NO. 893. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. (Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances at 66 Eastfield Drive, Thomas.) 8. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and a Variance to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to retain a shed in side setback and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miller). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. B. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,631 square foot single family residence, 1,308 square foot garage, 1,781 square feet covered porches, 950 square foot swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls and other miscellaneous accessory structures; grading for the new development and modification to a previously approved corral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patio into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -A1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. C. ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Consideration of a Zoning Code amendment relating to prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, delivery, distributing and dispensaries within the City by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020, and adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). It has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AND Consideration to adopt Resolution No. 2016-01. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City. -3- 9. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS (Feb. 16, 2016) 46 Eastfield Drive 77 Crest Road East 10. ITEMS FROM STAFF 11. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. -4- Agenda Item No: 5A Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 2015 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Smith, Kirkpatrick, Gray and Cardenas Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Leah Mirsch, resident Tavisha Nicholson, Engineer Tom Thomas, property owner FIELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. at 66 Eastfield Drive. ZONING CASE NO. 893. Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 475 square foot cabana, grading, above grade deck, walls, pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the raised deck, walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two existing sheds, trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 893, at 66 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Thomas). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and pointed out the proposed set aside area for a future stable and corral in the front yard. She stated that due to the location of the house in the rear of the lot, there is no other location on the property to provide a set aside for equestrian uses. All present proceeded to the side of the house to view the remaining of the requests. Planning Director Schwartz explained that the proposed 475 square foot cabana would be open on one side, facing the proposed 632 square foot pool and 100 square foot spa. She reviewed the proposed encroachments into the rear setback with the deck, retaining wall, pool equipment area and fireplace and the existing structures that encroach into setbacks, such as two sheds, portion of a trellis and a barbeque, which the applicant would like to retain. She reviewed the requested variances for disturbed area and total lot coverage. She stated that the non -permitted existing structures would require building permits. In response to Commissioner Gray, the project engineer stated that they may be able to lower the cabana a few feet, however it may require grading out into the Association easement. Commissioner Gray also inquired if the ridgeline could be changed in the same direction as the residence, to reduce the massing effect of the structure. Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Cardenas commented on the proximity of the cabana to the house and noted that the adjacent homes are lower than the subject lot and that no windows would face this project. However, they also noted that it might be possible that the cabana could be seen from a house in a distance. Commissioner Smith expressed concern that the natural terrain of the side of the lot will be affected by the proposed construction and that because all of the proposed and existing structures, including the house, are located in the side and rear, that portion of the lot feels overdeveloped. Commissioners then viewed the existing sheds in the rear setback and were informed that the RHCA Board granted a license agreement to the owner to retain the sheds in their current location in the easement. There being no further discussion on this project, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Conunission at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Yolanta Schwartz Date Planning Director Approved: Brad Chelf, Chairman Date DRAFT Agenda Item No. 5-B Meeting Date: 01-19-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECEMBER 15, 2015 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Shahiedah Palmer, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Myung Chung, CMC Architects. Aaron Nichols, Kamus and Keller Architects. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Ken and Sandy Pickar, 11 Bowie Road. Criss Gunderson, Arthitect. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road. Greg Keenan, Keenan Development. Carole Hoffman, 3 Hillside Lane. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 2015, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 17, 2015. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. November 17, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted a correction on page 4 to change the word times to items and on page -8 to change the word form to from. Planning Director Schwartz also noted a correction on p. 4 to correct the square footage of the raised patio to 117 sq. ft. Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 17, 2015 as corrected. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS ZONING CASE NO. 888. 17 NHDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (POST). Applicants requested continuance to January 19, 2016 meeting to allow time for modification to the project. At the request of the applicant, consideration of the Resolution of Approval in this case was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE ON A PROPERTY WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION; GRADING FOR A GUEST PARKING AREA AND VARIANCES TO LOCATE THE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE SITE, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE, AND TO LOCATE A PORTION OF A 3' HIGH RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 884 AT 13 OUTRIDER ROAD, (LOT 94-A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (HANG JA Y00). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road and stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request with conditions that the surface of the parking area be pervious and distinctly different than the surface of the driveway, that the area between the parking area and the roadway easement be landscaped and that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Myung Chung, Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to request that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution. Chairman Chelf expressed appreciation to Mr. Chung for his willingness to make the necessary changes to address the Planning Commission's concerns during its deliberations on this project. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT Following brief discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-23 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 884 at 13 Outrider Road. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO FILL IN AND CONVERT AN EXISTING CABANA TO A GUEST HOUSE AND TO CONSTRUCT A RAISED DECK AT 7 CREST ROAD EAST IN ZONING CASE NO. 891 (LOT 3 -FT), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (DOTY). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 891 at 7 Crest Road East and stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission made suggestions to the applicant to address the Planning Commission concerns related to the proposed wall in the outdoor kitchen area so that the wall is a splash wall that would not require a Variance or Site Plan Review. She stated that the applicant submitted revised plans based on the Planning Commission's direction and reviewed die plans which show the reduced trellis and reduced splash wall along the rear of the outdoor kitchen extending only 18" on each side of the kitchen. She further stated that the Planning Commission also considered the applicant's request for review of the proposed. outdoor light plan to determine if the proposal meets the intent of the Lighting Ordinance. She stated that based on the Planning Commission's direction, staff prepared a Resolution for consideration which incorporated the applicant's revised proposal and the Planning Commission's determination that the proposed lighting meets the intent of the lighting ordinance and will not be obtrusive. She stated that he Resolution is presented for consideration with additional conditions that the light bulbs in the proposed suspended fixtures do not exceed the proposed wattage, that all other lights meet the City's lighting ordinance requirements, that the landscaping comply with the City's water efficient landscape ordinance and that the remaining trellis sides be left open. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Aaron Nichols, Kamus and Keller Architects addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the revised request and to request that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution. Chairman Chelf expressed appreciation to Mr. Keller for his willingness to make the necessary changes to address the Planning Commission's concerns during its deliberations on this project. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-25 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 891 at 7 Crest Road East. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-24. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATING TO VIEW PRESERVATION. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that over the past several months, at the City Council's direction, the Planning Commission has been considering and discussing administrative regulations interpreting Measure B related to View Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT Preservation to address the ambiguity of certain provision set forth in Measure B as adopted by the voters. She stated that the matters being discussed included issues related to the definition of "mature" vs. "maturing" and what is considered "acquisition" of property. She stated that before the Planning Commission this evening is a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Administrative Regulations interpreting Measure B as presented. She summarized the Administrative Regulations as proposed by the Planning Commission including the definition of maturity, the criteria for acquisition and clarification of the retroactivity clause. She stated that included with the staff report is a correspondence from Lynn Gill addressing the "maturity" issue, which includes a suggestion that a tree be considered mature when it reaches 75% of its height as well as other suggestions. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed Administrative Regulations stating that she does not feel it meets the spirit and intent of Measure B specifically with regard to the provision that a tree that has been previously pruned is considered still maturing despite its age or height. In response to Ms. Schoettle's comment regarding the provision that a tree that has been previously pruned is considered still maturing, Vice Chairman Gray commented that if a tree has been previously trimmed to maintain a view based on mutual consent of the neighbors, it makes sense that the tree not be exempted, despite its maturity, if it is in the view corridor. He further commented that he feels that the City should not be involved in view disputes. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-24 recommending that the City Council adopt Administrative Regulations interpreting Measure B relating to view preservation. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion which carried without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 893. Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 475 square foot cabana, grading, above grade deck, walls, pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the deck, walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two existing sheds, trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 893, at 66 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Thomas). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that this is a continued public hearing where the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She reviewed the configuration of the property at 66 Eastfield Drive stating that the property is almost square and has a very long driveway with the house located at the rear the property. She noted that a Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT portion of the existing house is located in the rear yard setback. She stated that he applicant is proposing to construct a 475 sq. ft. cabana ranging from 14 ft. to 19 ft. in height. Also proposed is a 5 ft. wall along the edge of the cabana toward the proposed swimming pool, spa and deck. She reviewed the variances requested which include a variance to exceed the maximum disturbance, a variance to exceed total lot coverage. She further reviewed the applicant's request for additional accessory structures including a fire pit, pool equipment and a raised deck. She stated the proposed deck is located in the setback which requires a variance and the applicant is also proposing to retain an existing trellis constructed by a previous owner, a portion is also in the setback. She further stated that there are additional structures existing on the lot located in the setback including sheds and a barbeque which the applicant would also like to retain. She further reviewed the grading, which includes 565 cu. yds. of cut and 565 cu. yds. of fill. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to locate the future stable and corral in the front yard area of the property. She noted that the stable could not be located in the area of the proposed cabana and pool due to its proximity to the house. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any question the Planning Commission may have. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concern regarding the proposed out of grade condition and commented that he does not feel it meets the intent of the General Plan. He suggested that it could be nestled into the grade rather than being constructed out of grade. He expressed further concern regarding the location of the sheds in that it appears that they are on the property line. Commissioner Smith expressed concern regarding the project stating that she does not feel it meets the intent of the General Plan in that it does not preserve the natural undeveloped state of the lot. In response to Vice Chairman Gray's suggestion, Commissioner Cardenas commented that there will need to be a wall either way, whether it is above or below the pool because of the change in grade. He further commented that he would not be opposed to dropping the cabana down 5 ft. or to some halfway point to lessen the difference between the house and cabana. He commented that he was also concerned about the height of the cabana so after the field trip he viewed the flagging from the easement of the property below and feels that it is screened well enough and not as imposing as he suspected it might be. Brief discussion ensued concerning the lot coverage. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that much of what is being requested was already existing when the current property owner purchased the property and he appreciates that the applicant is going through the proper channels in requesting approval. Regarding the sheds, he commented that he has a similar situation and given that the easement is not usable, he understands the Community Association's decision to approve the location. He suggested that an option for addressing the height of the cabana may be to put a hip roof on the front given that the house has a hip roof. Discussion ensued concerning the options for lowering the height of the cabana. Ms. Nicholson commented that an option may be to lower the plate height of the cabana and provide screening. Further discussion ensued concerning the disturbance; the proposed pool and deck; the crowding on the property and the challenges of the lot. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT Following public comments and discussion, consideration of this item was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. to give the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review for minor grading and a 5' high retaining wall; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 704 square foot detached garage; and Variances to construct 61 sq. ft. addition to the residence in the front setback, a new one -car parking pad to be located closer than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, to located the garage partially within the front yard setback, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and to locate a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfield Drive (Lot 58-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Bennett). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive stating that this property is a smaller, square shaped lot. She stated that the applicant is requesting to construct a new, detached 704 sq. ft. garage partially in the front yard setback to replace existing garage. She reviewed the setback line on the property noting that most of the house and the existing garage are currently located in the setback. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a 61 sq. ft. addition to the front of the residence and a 195 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the house as well as a parking pad for one car in the front setback, 8 ft. from the roadway easement. She further reviewed the proposed garage and driveway configuration, which includes widening the existing driveway and requires Traffic Commission review. She further reviewed the applicant's request and the existing conditions of the property. She reviewed the proposed coverages stating that that structural lot coverage is currently at 24.1% and with the additions is proposed at 25.9% which are both over the allowed 30% maximum and total lot coverage is currently at 36.7% with proposed coverage is 41.1% which are both over the allowed 35% maximum. She further reviewed the additional variance requested. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the project. He stated that the driving force behind moving the garage is to make it more functional and to increase the parking space and the propose location is the best location for the garage. Discussion ensued concerning the width of the driveway. Following public comments and brief discussion, the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. The public hearing was continued. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence, 983 square foot garage, 6,000 square foot basement; 564 square foot swimming pool, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high, retaining walls; grading of 4,033 cubic yards of excavated dirt and 1,400 cubic yards of fill and a new driveway; and Variances for future stable and corral location in front yard and front setback, exceedance of the maximum permitted total lot coverage and of disturbed area of the lot, construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that do not average out to 2.5 feet in height, and service yard and basement light wells that encroach into the rear setback in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new house in Zoning Case No. 895 at 10 Bowie Road. She reviewed the lot configuration including the buildable area of the lot. She stated that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and construct at new 6,269 sq. ft. residence with a 6,000 sq. ft. basement, a 983 sq. ft. garage as well as a swimming pool, covered porches, entryway, and pool equipment area; and with an area for a future stable and corral located in the front yard area of the lot. She stated that the existing house encroaches into the setback and the new house is also requesting a variance to encroach along with a proposed Iightwell. She reviewed the proposed driveway and stated that the existing driveway will he abandoned and blended into the natural terrain. She further stated that the proposed driveway requires 5 ft. walls along both sides which do not average out to 2.5 ft. in height and require a variance. She further reviewed the grading plan stating that the building pad will be enlarged by approximately 5,800 sq. ft. and requires cut and fill. She summarized the variances requested which include: encroachment of the house into the rear setback, exceedance of the maximum permitted total lot coverage, exceedance of the maximum structural lot coverage and exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbance which is proposed at 96.6% where the disturbance was at 91% as the lot currently exists. She further reviewed the grading which includes 4,033 cu. yds. of excavation mostly from the basement which will be exported with 1,400 cu. yds. to be used for the fill and backfill of the wall. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ken Pickar, 11 Bowie Road addressed the Planning Commission to express concern that the proposed house it too large and does not fit the neighborhood. Criss Gunderson, Architect addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the project and to address Mr. Pickar's concerns stating that they are doing their best to reduce the overall impact of the mass of the house affecting the neighbors. In response to Commissioner Cardenas, Mr. Gunderson stated that the finished floor of the house will be within 3-6 inches of the finished grade and the basement will be a full basement as shown by the elevations listed on Sheet 1.2 of the plans. Chairman Chelf suggested that Mr. Gunderson reach out to Mr. Pickar in an attempt to address his concerns. Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Commission to ask if this property is located in the Overlay Zone District. Planning Director Schwartz responded that this property is not in the Overlay Zone District and explained the provisions set forth for properties in the Overlay Zone District. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT Following public comments and brief discussion, the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 895 at 10 Bowie Road. The public hearing was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels, having an APN: 7569-004-22 and 7569-004-23, into one parcel, which will result in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, as calculated by the City for development purposes in the RAS-1 Zoning District, at 11 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, CA, (Warren). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305(a) (Lot line adjustment). AND ZONING CASE NO. 896. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and 324 square foot wine cellar, 9,300 cubic yards of grading, various walls, pool patio and pool deck, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(6)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request stating that the Planning Commission is asked to consider two separate applications — one to merge two existing lots and the second to construct a 4,745 sq. ft. residence, garage, swimming pool, dressage arena, stable and corral at 11 Saddleback Road. Ms. Schwartz reviewed the details of the applicant's request to merge the two existing parcels into one parcel resulting in a parcel having 3.25 acres gross and 2.25 acres net as calculated for development purposes. She stated that the two parcels were created by a subdivision in 1977 where one lot was developed and the second lot remained undeveloped. She further stated that the undeveloped lot has several constraints and there is a recorded restricted use area at the rear of the property that was recorded as a condition of the subdivision. She stated that there is also a Southern California Edison easement across the property where no construction can take place. Ms. Schwartz stated that the second request is dependent upon the lot merger being approved and reviewed the details of the applicant's request to construct a 4,745 sq. ft. residence (in place of the existing residence), garage, swimming pool, dressage arena, stable and corral and various other amenities. She stated that the applicant proposes to construct a 2,415 stable by adding to the existing detached garage. She further stated that the applicant also proposes a 1,685 sq. ft. corral in the rear of the stable and to construct a 13,860 dressage arena on the portion of the property that is currently the vacant lot of which a portion is proposed to encroach into the front yard setback. She further stated that a variance is also requested to locate the proposed stable in the front yard area of the property. She further reviewed the proposed grading and the proposed access from the stable to the arena. Ms. Schwartz stated that included in the staff report is a list of house sizes on the nearby, developed lots as well as a list of Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 DRAFT stables that have been approved since 2011. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the driveway access to the stable stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the driveway to be paved more than is allowed given the unique circumstances that exist on the property. She reviewed the details of the proposed stable and stated that other than the driveway, the proposed stable meets the requirements of the Stable Ordinance. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the development standards which meet the building code guidelines with the exception of the disturbed area which is proposed at 46.95% where the maximum is 40%. She further reviewed the unique configuration of the lot stating that there is roadway on three sides of the property resulting in a large roadway easement area as well as a 50 ft. setback on the front and rear of the property. Brief discussion ensued conceming what is permitted to be done on the restricted area as well as the SCE easement. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Planning Director Schwartz stated that applicant is working with the Building Dept. to answer those questions. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Greg Keenan, Keenan Development addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the project. He stated with regard to the house and stable, that they are using the existing structures to the best advantage of the property. He further stated with regard to the dressage arena that it was designed to maintain an open appearance without any retaining walls. Carole Hoffman, 3 Hillside Lane addressed the Planning Commission in support of the project stating that she feels the property lends itself perfectly to a great equestrian facility. Following public comments and brief discussion concerning the disturbance and the merits of considering the projects separately, the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 & 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS Planning Director Schwarz stated that there is an outstanding project at 38 Portuguese Bend Road for which a field trip needs to be scheduled. On behalf of the applicant, Tavisha Nicholson from Bolton Engineering stated that the applicant is going to withdraw the application. Following brief discussion, the Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 3 Eastfield 10 Bowie 11 Saddleback ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 0 DRAFT ITEMS FROM STAFF City Manager Cruz reported that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is planning to install solar panels at some of their properties and they plan to hold community meeting on the subject. He stated that additional information will be provided as it becomes available. He also reported that the City hired an Associate Planner, Wendy Starks and she will start with the City on Monday, December 28, 2015. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 3 Eastfield Drive, 10 Bowie Road and 11 Saddleback Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Brad Chelf Chairman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Heidi Luce, City Clerk SUBJECT: Request to have a development restriction removed at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road DATE: January 19, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Commissioner Cardenas should recuse himself from consideration of this request. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Request to remove development restriction condition from a previous approval in Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Rd. DATE: January 19, 2016 1. The property owner of 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, Dave Dennee, submitted a request, attached, asking the Planning Commission to consider removing a "No further development" condition from his property. 2. Mr. Dennee proposes to add 108 square feet to the residence and would like to submit plans for an over-the-counter review and approval rather that submit for a discretionary review by the Planning Commission. 3. In April of 2008 by Resolution 2008-06, the Planning Commission approved a 1,172 square foot addition to the main residence with a variance for encroachment into the setbacks with the addition and a trellis. A condition was placed on the property that any future development or grading would require a discretionary review by the Planning Commission, ("a no further development condition"). Some of the reasons for including this condition in the approval were that although the lot is large, 4.5 acres, it is constraint due to the road crossing the lot and having a steep terrain. The residential building pad is relatively small -10,748 square feet for the size of the parcel, and with the addition the building pad coverage was going to be 50.2%. Additionally, for this application, staff discovered that the existing barbeque and fireplace were constructed without a permit in the front yard area. A condition was placed on the SPR approval that the BBQ and fireplace be either removed or legalized. This approval was granted to the previous owners, who did not construct the addition. 4. In January of 2010 by Resolution No. 2010-03, the Planning Commission granted a new owner, (Dennee), a CUP in Zoning Case No. 776, to convert an existing stable to a recreation room and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral elsewhere on the lot. The "no further development" condition was carried over to this development, partially due to the location of the future stable and corral and as a reminder that the BBQ and fireplace were required to be legalized. 5. In October 2012 by a Resolution No. 2012-21, the Planning Commission granted a SPR for a 364 square foot addition to the residence. This addition request required Planning Commission review due to the "no further development" condition placed previously on the property. 6. In January 2014, the applicant informed staff that he is planning to add 108 square foot addition, rather than the 364 square feet approved by the resolution, and staff approved such addition (due to the fact that it was smaller than what was approved by the Planning Commission). Mr. Dennee has not constructed either addition, and the entitlement for the construction expired in October 2014. 7. Mr. Dennee is currently proposing to add 108 square feet, rather than the 364 sq.ft. previously approved. With the 108 square foot addition the building pad coverage would be 47.5%, (currently 45.5%). Since the building pad coverage is a guideline, staff is authorized to approve construction that exceeds the guideline of 30% coverage. All other development standards meet the zoning code requirements. 8. Mr. Dennee requests that the Planning Commission remove the "No further development" condition from his property. He is proposing to legalize the BBQ and fire place and a condition would be placed on the administrative approval (if this request is granted) that no final inspection will be conducted until the BBQ and fire place are either legalized or removed. 9. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 (C) 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff is authorized to approved minor, miscellaneous structures on properties with the "No further Development" restriction "providing such construction meets the development standards of the zoning ordinance, no discretionary review is otherwise required and where the cumulative total of all such improvements do not exceed 300 square feet". Such improvements are listed and include trellis, BBQ, fire place, hardscape, garden walls not to exceed 3' in height, play forts and "similar minor amenities" as well as "similar minor improvements determined by staff to not have greater impacts upon the property than those enumerated above". Staff determined that the 108 square foot addition does not qualify for over-the-counter approval by staff, because the improvements listed as permitted are all detached minor structures; whereas the proposed addition is attached to the house, and no precedent has been set in the past, or determination made by the Planning Commission to allow staff to approve attached structures. 10. It is requested that the Planning Commission review the request and provide direction to staff. The Planning Commission could rule as follows: A. Approve the request, in which case staff would bring a revised Resolution No. 2010-03 for Planning Commission approval removing the restrictive development condition, and then administratively approve 108 square foot addition to the residence; OR B. Deny the request, in which case the applicant would be required to submit a Site Plan Review application to the Planning Commission for the 108 square foot addition; OR C. Determine that the 108 square foot addition meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance under the "similar minor improvements" list in Section 17.46.040 (C) 1 and will not have a greater impact on the property than those detached structures allowed to be approved administratively. In this case, the development restriction condition would still be applicable towards future projects on the property and the 108 square foot addition would be counted towards the 300 square feet total miscellaneous structures allowed to be approved by staff on projects with the restrictive condition, (providing all other requirements are met). acs t -b zzt ( in 8-1 . E'Cl•-c1 cv Hi FC-4 e ib Witt9k 7e + e -e &Lc Occ-sz aunt al>oft Z -cat ests2 _ `I c A-- l 'M` v -W&r tT ftet5 i-i c Ant t -►. -11- l )e £ 2- €22A - St t c--0-61__ vitiriA--z C TLS eke>.ren> z, atr--5 nab "Mt' r qi- )zE,LE Tb Cc _ * lno 0.0 ( bt e.c tttr Dom, AWE A- P co,es Verr_ Hsu. e -c -z e P --e a Kam& e-cL C we 'rust 5 9-c NFL. McTn cam.\ A-12-(Z—v-raJD ct CSC.D- 5-cr ausse-t7 , Pua & r Lei c$3) �P 2Aco -c.S 1- %ice City 0/E//; , 6/id INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 3777288 Agenda Item No.: 7A Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 892 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 58-EF) RA -54, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. BENNETT BEN CAUTHEN, PROJECT DESIGNER DECEMBER 3, 2015 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed development on December 15, 2015 and visited the site early in the day on January 19, 2016. 2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, request a Site Plan Review for grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the existing 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. ft. would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, 3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, 4) to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that will not average out to 2.5' in height. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public input and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.) and 44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road t: Printed on Recycled Paper north 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 (rear). The topography in the front yard between 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. 5. In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition, waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23 -feet, in recognition of the constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7 feet into the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a tennis court, allowing the court to encroach into the side yard. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The property is developed with a 3,073 square foot residence, 672 square foot garage and 510 square foot swimming pool on a 5,908 square foot building pad area (outside setbacks). A 6,433 square foot tennis court is located in the rear of the property. The existing garage will be demolished and replaced and a nonconforming animal pen in the front yard setback will be removed. A 1,000 square foot area is proposed to be set aside for a future stable and corral near the tennis court. 7. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage of 24.1% (20% allowed) and with the proposal, this will increase to 25.9%, (which includes a future stable). The existing total coverage is also nonconforming at 36.7% (35% allowed) and this will be increased to 41.1%, requiring a variance. 8. The construction of a new garage and an addition of an enclosed front entry within the standard 50 -foot front setback each require a new variance because the current proposal exceeds the scope of the prior variance. The new garage will be 704 square feet (3 -car), detached and reoriented so that the access will be at the front, facing Eastfield. By reorienting the garage, it will encroach 18' into the required 50' front setback, for a total encroachment of 576 square feet. (Current garage encroaches 27' for a total encroachment of 594 square feet). Behind the garage, a new service yard will be built. In between the garage and front entry of the home, a paved entry courtyard will be created leading to the proposed new 61 square foot enclosed entry. 9. The applicant's goal is to improve access and parking on the property. To improve access, the driveway will be widened approximately 5 feet and the garage will be reconstructed with increased setback and new orientation. To increase on -site parking, a one -car motor court will be constructed within the front setback, 8 feet from the roadway easement line, which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of the Municipal Code parking areas must be located at least 30 feet from the roadway easement line and the driveway and parking area may not cover, respectively, more ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road than 20% and 10% of the front yard setback. The driveway will cover 11.5% and the parking area will cover 9% of the front setback, which is conforming. 10. The applicant proposes to construct several retaining walls to create the new motor court and to widen the driveway (to 17 feet wide at its narrowest point). Several existing retaining and rubble walls will be removed. At the motor court a 5 -foot high maximum retaining wall is required but the wall along the driveway will vary in height to no more than 3 feet. The construction of the wall along the driveway complies with the code, as up to 3' high walls are permitted along driveways. 11. The creation of the motor court and widened driveway involves minor grading, including 21 cubic yards of earth that will be reused as fill under the new garage slab. This grading will not alter the existing drainage patterns. 12. The widening of the driveway requires review by the City's Traffic Commission, which is scheduled on January 28, 2016. The project, including walls within the roadway easement will also be required to be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Community Association. 13. The existing disturbed area is 38.9% of the net lot, (40% max.) and with this proposal, due to the minor grading at the front, the disturbed area will increase (4.5%) to 43.4%, requiring a variance. 14. Coverage on the 5,908 square foot residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will be increased from 72.4% to 85.8%. The guideline established by the Planning Commission is a maximum pad coverage of 30%. 15. In accordance with Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit is required for a detached garage pursuant to the criteria and conditions in 17.16.210 as follows: a. (Garage) shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. b. A sink and toilet is permitted. c. A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be permitted. d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted. e. The Planning Commission shall have the ability to limit the size of the detached garage in relationship Ir I:he size of the residence, topograpliy, size of the lol: and ulhrr conditions. The proposed garage will be in compliance with the above criteria except location within the front yard and setback, which is included in the variance applications. No sleeping quarters, or plumbing fixtures are proposed and the proposal is for a standard 3 -car garage structure. An existing guest quarters within the existing garage will be removed. ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road C3) CONCLUSION 16. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. In addition, the Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with this report. 17. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography of the property, lot size and/or shape and the location of the previously graded pad at the front of the property, which limits site layout options. It will be a requirement that all utility lines be placed underground. 18. The owner has submitted the following as the basis for making findings to approve the project: Site Plan Review: 1) The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount and degree and will not alter the existing character and residential use on the property or of the surrounding neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the property be significantly altered; 2) Existing landscaping will be preserved, and all otherwise native vegetation on the property will be preserved. Variances: 1) The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback, will be screened behind and at the bottom of a slope which is consistent with the natural topography; 2) The proposed 5 -foot retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the existing topography; 3) The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be less than the existing garage and is constrained by the location of the existing house and building pad which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and towards the rear of the building pad; 4) The amount of new living area being added within the front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be a relatively small area (61 square feet) and will not be visible from the street at the lot front; 5) The lot coverage increase is relatively small compared to the amount of coverage that is associated with the existing improvements, in particular, the existing 6,433 square foot sports court; the amount of disturbed area exceedance proposed is relatively minor and the purpose, to provide more onsite parking, and to widen the driveway will result in better vehicle access. Conditional Use Permit: Other than the requested variance for location, the detached garage will comply with the development standards for detached garage. ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road 0 18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor addition to an existing residence pursuant to Section 15301.e of the CEQA Guidelines. ZONING CASE NO. 892 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DETACHED GARAGE, POOL, SPORT COURT ADDITIONS, DETACHED GARAGE, MOTOR COURT, GRADING FRONT YARD, WALL HEIGHT, DISTURBED AREA, COVERAGES Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures, grading and if size of the residence increases by more than 999 sq. ft. in a 36 -month period). Residence Garage Stable(fut) Service yd Guest hse Pool Pool eqpm. Sport court Shed 3073 sq.ft 420 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 252 sq.ft 510 sq.ft 24 sq.ft. 6433 sq,ft 76 sq. ft. Residence Garage Stable (fut) Service yd Guest hse Pool/spa Pool eqpm. Sport court Shed 3268 sq.ft 704 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 109 sq.ft 0 sq.ft. 510 sq.ft. 24 sq.ft. 6433 sq.ft. 76 sq.ft. TOTAL 10,788 sq.ft. TOTAL 11,574 sq.ft. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 24.3% 26.0% of 44,413 sq.ft. net lot area (25.9 %with deductions) (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 36.7% 41.1% of 44,413 sq.ft. net lot area (with deductions) (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 72.4% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad 85.8% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad (30% maximum guideline) GRADING N/A 21 cubic yards total, to be balanced on site Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft, must be balanced on site DISTURBED AREA 38.9% of lot 43.4% of lot (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) and Future CORRAL (minimum 550 s.. ft.) ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road 6) STABLE ACCESS N/A Future ACCESSWAY Existing from Eastfield Existing from Eastfield- widened VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road 0 gar al Roack€9 qetei INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 7B Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 895 10 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 4-CRA) RA -S-1, 1.6 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) PANG JUI YIU CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT DECEMBER 3, 2015 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in this case on December 15, 2015 and visited the site on January 19, 2016. At the December 15 meeting a resident at 11 Bowie Road. Mr. Picar, expressed concern with the proposed height of the house and general redevelopment of the lot. 2. The architect met with Mr. Picar and prepared a sight line illustration to show how much of the development would be visible from the street and from Mr. Picar's residence. They walked along Bowie Road and from one vantage point of the road only a portion of the covered porch was visible, and none of the house is visible from Mr. Picar's house. The architect is proposing to rotate the house slightly to the east and move it back (south). This configuration would cause 934 square feet of the proposed residence to encroach between 2' to 24' into the required 50' rear yard setback, (previously proposed at bt. 2'-21' encroachment). The architect has also removed the covered porches previously proposed in the front, (reduction of 519 square feet), moved the side porch outside of the side setback, reduced the garage from 983 square feet to 848 square feet and removed a short wall at the west side of the driveway by Bowie Road. The grading will also be adjusted to reduce the export of dirt to 134 cubic yards. The building pad will increase by 711 square feet. The set aside for future stable and ZC NO. 89510 Bowie Rd. 0 corral is not proposed to be graded. The swimming pool will be relocated further south - towards the house to be in line with the leading edge of the house. Per Mr. Picar's request, the applicant agreed to plant trees along the slope in the front and side. RHCA approval will be required for planting in the easement. 3. With the proposed changes, the applicant, Mr. Pang Jui Yiu, requests a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with 6,000 square foot basement, 848 square foot garage, (reduction from 983 sf), 550 square feet covered porches, (reduction from 1,066 sf), 98 square foot entry, 640 square foot swimming pool, several retaining walls of various heights, but not to exceed 5' in height, service yard, pool equipment area and outdoor kitchen. A total of 8,248 cubic yards of grading is proposed: 4,209 cubic yards of cut and basement and pool excavation and 4,075 cubic yards of fill for the building pad, turn around area and driveway. A new 400' long, 20'wide driveway will be constructed. Multiple variances are requested for: 1) portion of the house, service yard and two light wells to encroach into the rear setback; 2) a future stable and corral location in the front yard and the corral partially in the front setback; 3) to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and the disturbed area of the lot; 4) construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that exceed an average height of 2.5 feet and 5) to exceed the maximum permitted coverage with a driveway of the front setback; 24.8% of the front setback will be covered by a driveway, whereas 20% is permitted. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 5. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 1.6 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 59,376 square feet or 1.36 acres. 6. The existing 3,506 square foot house and 703 square foot detached garage and a gazebo will be demolished. The existing house encroaches 1,110 square feet and up to 28' into the rear yard. There are some existing retaining walls that will remain including a 7 -foot tall wall that is within the rear yard setback and which has nonconforming status. That wall will not be altered or extended but will be maintained at the existing height. As stated above the architect revised the project and removed two covered porches and decreased the size of the garage. The pool is proposed to be larger, 640 square feet vs. 548 square feet previously proposed. The new home will contain 6,269 square feet plus a 6,000 square foot basement and 848 square foot garage. Currently 1,110 square feet of the house encroaches into the rear setback. 934 square feet of the proposed house will ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road encroach into the rear setback, between 2' and 24'. A new driveway is proposed that will access the site from Bowie Road, utilizing a slightly reconfigured existing apron. The Traffic Commission will review the proposed apron at their January 28, 2016 meeting. 7. The site does not have an existing stable and corral or a set aside. The applicant has designated a future stable and corral location between the proposed house and Bowie Road. A variance is required for the stable and corral because they would be located within the front yard and setback. Access to a future stable is planned off the proposed new driveway. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The grading for this project will consist of a total of 8,284 cubic yards of dirt. 4,209 cubic yards of cut will be generated from basement and pool excavation and a cut for the driveway. 4,075 cubic yards of fill will be used for the building pad and yard areas. The total amount of exported earth from grading (excavation) is expected to be 134 cubic yards. 9. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 54,320 square feet (91.5% of net lot area) that is proposed to be increased mostly due to the driveway construction, to 57,392 square feet (increase of 3,072 square feet) to 96.6%, which requires a variance. The architect states that the front of the lot and most of the west side of the property was graded previously when Bowie Road was constructed and is included in the disturbed area. 10. The roof ridgeline at the highest point of the residence will not exceed 17'6" from the finished grade. The proposed pad elevation on the average (as it slopes from rear to front) will be at 1045.5 -foot elevation and the ridge height at the highest will be at 1063' elevation. The house will have a full living area basement with a depth of approximately 11 feet, at finished floor elevation 1034.34. Proposed are eight wells, or shafts external and adjoining the building that allow mainly for access of light and air to the basement. Four of the wells are 8' wide. Two light wells and one set of stairs for emergency egress, as well as the service yard are to be located in the rear yard setback and are subject to a variance. All wells will have a 42 -inch high solid wall on the exterior to shield view and access into the wells. Although the design of the light wells are under the purview of the RHCA Architectural Committee, and the requirement for ingress and egress and for light and ventilation for basements are reviewed by the Building Department, the Planning Commission may regulate the massing of structures, number and height of walls, compatibility of the structure in relationship to the lot and other aspects of the development. Therefore, staff would recommend, and the Commission could require, ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road that the applicant consult with the Building Department on how many light wells would be necessary based on the floor plan of the basement and that only the minimum amount required by the Building Code be constructed. 11. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will be increased by 6,527 square feet to 16,882 square feet. A maximum 30" retaining wall is proposed to be constructed along the building pad that would extend past the swimming pool. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 47.4%, which includes all of the structures, but excludes permissible deductions of 120 square feet and the porch. This is an increase from 41.6% from the existing condition. The code provides a guideline of 30% maximum coverage. The future stable building pad is proposed at 2,073 square feet in area, and coverage of 21.7%, assuming a minimum 450 square foot stable is built. 12. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,115 square feet or 15.3%; with the allowed deductions the structural coverage will be 8,995 or 15.1%, which is in compliance with the 20% maximum permitted of net lot area. However, when factoring in the additional flatwork that is proposed, including the new driveway, the total lot coverage will be 23,345 square feet or 39.3%, which exceeds the maximum permitted of 35%, (of net lot area). Currently, the total coverage is 38.8%. A variance is requested from the total lot coverage requirement Currently there is no landscaping on the flat areas of the lot, and the entire building pad is paved. The new building pad will have several pockets of landscaping, which will soften the massing and, therefore the total lot coverage will increase by less than 1% from the existing. 13. A new 400' long driveway with a motor court and turnaround area to meet Fire Department standards is proposed, which adds a net increase in flatwork of 3,954 square feet (total 11,240 square feet). The driveway will be paved, (impervious surface). 24.8% of the front yard setback will be covered by the driveway, (approx. 5,000 sq.ft. of the 20,175 sq.ft. front yard setback), which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance, driveways may not cover more than twenty percent of the area of the setback in which they are located. In addition, all driveways shall have a roughened driveway apron and the first twenty feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of seven percent. No driveway shall exceed a maximum grade of twelve percent, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The proposed driveway varies in slope. 14. The architect consulted with the Fire Department regarding the driveway requirement. The Fire Department requires a 20' wide driveway and a turnaround or "hammerhead" at the motor court up near the home. To achieve this, the existing driveway location on the east side will be abandoned in favor of a new approach that ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road crosses the front and wraps towards the garage and motor court on the west side. The topography of this portion of the lot includes a steep upward grade. To accommodate the 400' long driveway, a series of retaining walls are proposed along the entire driveway, which range from 3.0 feet in height to a maximum of 5 -feet. Two sections of the driveway walls will be flanked by another set of 5' high retaining walls, set back 5', in order to keep the retaining wall along the driveway to 5' maximum, rather than construct much higher retaining walls. Portions of the proposed driveway retaining walls will be located in the RHCA easements, and will require their approval. The existing driveway will be abandoned and blended back into the hillside. In the rear, at the southeast corner, two new walls (approximately 40 -feet in length each), are proposed within the rear setback at a height ranging from 1 to 5 feet. They will tie into an existing 7 -foot high retaining wall. The retaining walls will not average out to 2.5 feet in height and the service yard is proposed to be located in the rear setback; both conditions require a variance. 15. Routine conditions of approval will require that utility lines to the residence be placed underground and a new septic tank installed in compliance with all applicable standards. 16. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements, and will be subject to the City's Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance, which has the purpose of ensuring that building and landscape features are designed to retain storm water runoff. Lastly, the project will be subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance where the applicants must implement low water usage planting and devices and certify compliance. The site will maintain its existing drainage patterns. The new driveway surface will drain to Bowie Road, to be collected in an existing storm. drain catch basin adjacent to the site. 17. In describing the application the applicant's agent states that the main constraint on this lot is the steepness of the lot at the front which disallows use of the existing driveway in meeting Fire Department standards for access. The need to build a new longer driveway to meet fire standards in turn constrains the ability to meet the lot coverage requirement. The new driveway, especially the large motor court and hammerhead area, adds a net of 3,954 square feet of paved surface, which increases the already nonconforming total lot coverage from 38.8% to 39.3% (35% maximum allowed). The applicant's agent states further that the project will preserve the existing topography with only minor grading, and will preserve mature trees and drainage courses. ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road He states that the existing house encroaches 28 feet into the rear setback for a total of 1,110 square feet, and the new construction will diminish this condition, therefore providing for a greater rear yard. 18. While the disturbed area proportionate to net lot area remains high (96.6%), the net increase is a relatively minor amount (5.1%) considering the extent of retaining walls that are needed to construct the driveway. Retaining walls are kept to a minimum, generally a maximum of 5 -feet along the driveway, and approximately 30 -inches in other areas. 19. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 20. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City (except as related to the variances), including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 exemption in that the project is a new single family residence. ZC NO. 895 NEARBY PROPERTIES For information onl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (excl. roadway easements) 2 Bowie 4,965 (1964) 38,986 4 Bowie 2,957 (1960/04) 64,338 6 Bowie 3,592 (1972/77) 102,370 8 Bowie 4,742 (1966/68) 73,790 9 Bowie 1,916 (1961) 79,410 12 Bowie 4,805 (1960/80) 61,120 10 Bowie Proposed 6,269 70,567 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road 0 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE , GAZEBO, TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, POOL, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, SET -ASIDE STABLE/CORRAL LOCATION Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Gazebo Service yard 3506 sq.ft. 702 sq.ft 128 sq.ft. 96 sq. ft. Residence Garages Stable (future) Service yard Pool Pool Equipment Outdoor kitchen Attached covered porches Entry Basement 6269 sq.ft. 848 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 640 sq.ft. 20 sq.ft. 144 sq.ft 550 sq.ft. 98 sq.ft. 6000sq. ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 4,432 sq.ft TOTAL 9,115 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.2% (with allowances) 8,995 sq.ft. w/allowed deductions or 15.1% of 59,376 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 38.8% 23,345 sq.ft. w/allowances or 39.3% of 59,376 sq.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 41.6% (to be demolished) None existing 47.4% of 16,882 sq.ft. residential pad 21.7% on future 2,073 sq.ft. pad Residence, garage, gazebo Stable (minimum 450 sq. ft) GRADING N/A 4,209 c.y. cut and 4,075 c.y. fill 134 c.y. from basement (export) Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site (except basement) DISTURBED AREA 91.5% 96.6% 59,376 sq.ft. of net lot area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 450 sq. ft. future proposed 550 sq. ft. future corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/ A Off main private driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing Existing driveway approach, slightly reconfigured. VIEWS N/A 't.." Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A• . ... Planning Commission review ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC No. 895 10 Bowie Road City o/&?J/, /h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 3777288 Agenda Item No.: 7C(1) Mtg. Date: 1/19/16 AND MEMBERS OF THE FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 896-A 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD RA -S-1, 3.25 ACRES GROSS (AFTER LL ADJ) CANDICE WARREN BOLTON ENGINEERING DECEMBER 3, 2015 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in this case on December 15, 2015 and visited the site early on January 19, 2016. 2. The applicant, Candice Warren requests a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to merge two lots, containing 1.8 acres and 1.4 acres gross, into one lot which would result in a lot having 3.2 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, as calculated by the City for development purposes. In conjunction with the lot merger, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence plus 659 square foot garage, and other accessory structures, 9,300 cubic yards of grading; and Variances to locate the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and for lot disturbance in Zoning Case No. 896. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND ZC NO. 896-A Lot Line Adj. Printed on Recycled Paper 4. The two parcels were created in 1977 by a Subdivision No. 31906. Lot one is 1.8 acres gross and Lot 2 is 1.4 acres gross. Lot two has several constrains, as there is a recorded restricted use area over an approximately 1/3 of the lot and 10' wide Edison Easement crosses over a portion of the lot. The records also indicate that a drainage pipe was constructed across a portion of Lot 1. 5. Lot 2 is currently vacant and Lot 1 is developed with a 3,023 square foot residence and 1,638 square feet garages (one detached and one attached). The 1977 subdivision approval contained a condition that the then existing attached garage be demolished and a new garage constructed. That garage was too close to the new lot line that created the second lot, therefore in the side setback. A new detached garage was constructed in 1981, but the old one was not demolished. No other improvements were made to the property since the subdivision was completed and the new garage constructed. The merging of these two lots would eliminate the non -conforming condition of encroachment with the garage into the side yard setback. 6. The proposed LLA would eliminate the existing lot line between 11 Saddleback Road, the developed lot, and the vacant lot south thereof. Both lots are zoned RAS-1, and the merger would result in one 3.25 acres lot, gross and 2.258 acres net lot. Approval of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variances would be subject to the approval of the LLA to merge the lots. 7. The project is a minor lot line adjustment that will not result in the creation of a new parcel and qualifies as an exemption from CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines Article 19 Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). DISCUSSION 8. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission may not impose conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances. There are no variances associated with the application as to the size of the resulting lot and the existing nonconformity of the location of the garage will be removed. 9. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Land Development Division, under a contract with the City, will review the legal descriptions of the newly configured lot, and the RHCA will also have to approve the merger. Once the lot line adjustment is approved and the legal descriptions for the adjusted lot verified, staff will prepare the appropriate documents for recordation of the newly configured lot. 10. The applicant is not proposing to construct structures on lot 2, only the dressage arena, which will require grading. Staff is requiring that the applicant ZC NO. 896-A Lot Line Adj. confirm with LA County Building Department and/or Land Development Division if grading would be permitted over a restricted area depicted on the Parcel Map on Lot 2; and with So. Ca. Edison Company, whether grading and the arena would be permitted over their easement. The applicant's agents are in contact with the other agencies to resolve these questions. ZC NO. 896-A Lot Line Adj. City O/leLLiny J/;// INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7C(2) Mtg. Date: 1/19/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 896 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (LOT 48-1 and 2-RH) RA -S-1, 3.25 ACRES GROSS (AFTER LL ADJ) CANDICE WARREN BOLTON ENGINEERING/KEENAN CONSTRUCTION DECEMBER 3, 2015 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in this case on December 15, 2015 and visited the site early in the day on January 19, 2016. 2. The applicant, Candice Warren, requests a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances to construct a 4,745 square foot residence, 342 square foot basement/wine cellar, 659 square foot attached garage, 370 square feet covered patio, 450 square foot swimming pool, 50 square foot spa, 50 square foot pool equipment area, 2,415 square foot stable with 625 square foot loft, which would be located in the front yard area of the lot (in front of the leading edge of the residence), 135 square foot porch at the stable, 1,685 square foot corral, two trellises 210 square feet each, 60 square foot outdoor kitchen/bbq, 18 square foot fire place, 96 square foot service yard, 950 square foot pool decking, 2,050 square foot patio, a not to exceed 3.5' high seating wall along the pool decking, and 13,860 square foot, (70' by 198'), dressage arena, of which 1,250 square feet would be located in the front setback. Grading for this project is proposed to be 9,300 cubic yards of dirt total to be balanced on site. With the proposed grading the disturbed area of the lot would be 75.04%. In conjunction with the proposed development the applicant requests a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) to merge two lots, containing 1.8 acres and 1.4 acres gross respectively, into one lot, which would result in a lot having 3.2 acres gross and 2.25 ZC NO. 896 0 h' Printed on Recycled Paper acres net in size, as calculated by the City for development purposes, (Zoning Case No. 896-A). 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and with the lot merger will contains 2.25 acres net for development purposes (98,358 square feet). Lot #1 is currently developed with a 3,023 square foot residence with attached 473 square foot garage, 1,165 square foot detached garage and 130 square foot entryway. The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing detached garage and convert 900 square feet of the garage into a stable, and add to it for a larger stable. The parcel is located on a curve along Saddleback Road with three sides of the parcel adjacent to the road. Although the gross lot area of the lot (after merger) would be over 3.2 acres; the long roadway easement plus the deductions for development purposes reduces the lot to 2.25 acres. 5. The two parcels were created by a subdivision in 1977. At that time Lot 1 was already developed and Lot 2 was vacant. Lot 2 has several constrains, as there is a recorded restricted use area over an approximately 1/3 of the lot and a 10' wide Edison Easement crosses over a portion of the lot. The tentative parcel map shows a potential 12,000 square foot building pad on Lot 2 for development of a small house. The records also indicate that a geological hazard area on Lot 2 was identified on the western portion of Lot 2. The records also show a drainage pipe across portion of Lot 1. Staff requested that the applicant confirm with LA County Building Department and/or Land Development Division if grading would be permitted over a restricted area; and with So. Ca. Edison Company, whether grading of the arena would be permitted over their easement. The engineer will also need to determine if the drainage pipe was actually constructed and its location and function, and design the drainage accordingly. The applicant's agent contacted Edison Co. planner and was informed that normally grading would be permitted over their easement and that he would get back to him. If allowed, a letter permitting grading would be issued. As for the "Restricted Use Area" the County engineer could not find records in the subdivision file requiring such note on the Map. She will review the soils and geology studies in detail to determine if this note was warranted. ZC NO. 896 6. The 1977 subdivision approval contained a condition that the then existing attached garage be demolished and a new garage constructed. That garage was too close to the new lot line that created the second lot, therefore in the rear setback. A new detached garage was constructed in 1981, but the old one was not demolished. No other improvements were made to the property since the subdivision was completed and the new garage constructed. DETAILS OF REQUESTS SITE PLAN REVIEW, (SPR): 7. In the application, the applicant states that proposed is a 1,722 square foot addition in several places to the existing residence and major remodel. The existing house was built in 1952 and staff determined that most of the existing house would have to be demolished in order to make the additions work. It is staff's opinion that once the roof and walls are removed for the additions, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to keep the remaining structural parts. Therefore, for the purpose of the Site Plan Review application, staff deemed the construction of the house to be new construction. 8. The SPR is required for the 4,745 square foot residence with a 342 square foot basement/wine-cellar; 659=square=foot=attached=garage; porch; grading -of -4;650-cubic yards cut and 4,650 cubic yards fill for the proposed swimming pool, spa, pool equipment, pool decking and patio areas; for the stable, corral, the dressage arena and for the access to the arena. SPR is also required for the seating wall that exceeds 3' in height and for the stable. The ancillary outdoor structures, such as the trellises, outdoor kitchen, fireplace, decking and patio do not require discretionary review by the Planning Commission. They are listed here for information only. Normally a swimming pool (800 sq.ft. or less), spa and similar structures would not require a SPR. However, in this case the grading for those structures trigger SPR. 9. The maximum ridge of the house is 898.67 with a finished floor of 881.0 for a total height of 17.67'. The seating wall will range from 2.5' to 3.5' in height. No other walls are proposed with this project. Homes/lots in vicinity of subject site, in square feet: kAddr'ess L Lot Size (exrl..road) :.::Housesize' : . :, Built/remodeled 6 Eucalyptus 43,000 5,026 1989 6 Saddleback 116,000 4,620 (approved) 1961/2015 10 Saddleback 43,995 3,789 1973 ZC NO. 896 12 saddleback 39,200 6,310 1961/2009 16 Saddleback 100,190 2,569 1951 22 Saddleback 144,183 4,100 (under construction) 1964/2015 26 Saddleback 196,890 4,716 1964 11 Saddleback 111,480 (incl. restricted area) 4,745 Proposed 10. Grading for this project entails 4,650 cubic yards of cut and 4,650 cubic years of fill, (9,300 c.y. total), which will be balanced on site. The cut, of up to maximum 14.5' will be in the area of the proposed arena; and the fill of up to 11' will be used for the horse access area behind the pool and decking. The engineer estimates that additional 13,000 cubic yards -total of dirt will be moved for overexcavation and recompaction. Overexcavation/recompaction consists of "grading in place"; where the dirt is excavated, benching for stability of the slope built and the dirt put back. (a) Grading for the residence and pool area will consist of excavation for the pool of 130 cubic yards and a fill for the horse access around the pool of 2,671 cubic yards. The slope behind the access road requires benching and the overexcavation and recompaction will consist of 3,250 cubic yards of dirt each. (b) Grading for the arena will consist of 4,330 cubic yards of cut (max. 14.5'); and 655 cubic yards of fill (max. 6.75'). The overexcavation and compaction for the benching for the arena pad will be 1,890 cubic yards each. (c) Grading in the stable area will consist of 190 cubic yards of cut (max. 6.25') for the horse access by the stable and 1,300 cubic yards of fill (max 4.5' at NW corner of stable and max. 8.75' at NW corner of corral). The overexcavation and compaction for the benching for the stable area will be 1,400 cubic yards each. The resulting slopes will have 2:1 gradient. There are few areas where the slope could result in 3:1 gradient, but, according to the project engineer, it would require a greater disturbance of the lot and the grading would have to extent in some areas into the roadway easement. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (CUP): 11. Pursuant to the Zoning Code requirements, stables over 200 sq. ft. and corrals over 550 sq. ft., horseback riding rings and similar equestrian uses require a Conditional Use Permit and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant requests a CUP for 2,415 square foot stable with 625 square foot loft. 900 square feet of the existing detached garage is proposed to be converted to the stable and more footage added for a total of 2,415 square foot stable footprint. The stable and corral would be located in the front yard area of the lot (in front of the leading edge of the residence). A 135 square foot porch is proposed at the stable and a 1,685 square foot corral would be adjacent to the stable. A 13,860 square foot dressage arena, (70' by 198'), is proposed to be located on what is now Lot 2. 1,250 square feet of ZC NO. 896 • the arena is proposed to be located in the front yard setback. A three rail fence will surround the arena. (For grading quantities, see item #10 above). 12. The stable will be located 35' from the residence and the dressage arena 45 feet from the residence (garage) on the same lot. The closest residence to the north of the proposed corral is 120 feet. The closest residence from the proposed dressage arena is 267' to the west; and approx. 140 feet to a house to the south: 13. The subject property has a driveway access from Saddleback Road. Past the apron, the driveway divides into access to the residence and to the detached garage, which is proposed to be converted to stable. That driveway is paved and at its widest point, by the garage, is 36'. The applicant wishes to keep this driveway and provide a 3' -wide strip of soft-scape surface in the middle of the driveway. Pursuant to Section 17.18.030 of the zoning ordinance, "no less than a six-foot wide roughened surface or dirt vehicular access way to the stable and corral area for delivery of feed and removal of waste shall be provided. Such access way shall not exceed a slope of twenty-five percent. This access way shall not be entirely paved". This section also provides that for stables larger than 1,000 square feet (which are subject to Fire Department review), the driveway shall be as required by the Fire Department. Since the code is not specific, the Planning Commission has a discretion as to how the access to the stable should look like, as long as it is. not entirely paved. Staff recommends that the applicant demolish the hard surface of this driveway, and provide lesser and softer approach. Although the Fire Department has approved in the recent past 15' wide driveways, their requirement is a minimum of 20' wide all weather surface driveway. They have some discretion of approving less wide driveways based on certain circumstances, such as proximity of the structure to a fire hydrant, type of use and others. 14. The proposed stable would have a footprint of 2,415 square feet, in an off set rectangular structures, and a 625 square foot loft, for a total of 3,040 square foot stable. The ground floor containing 2,415 square feet has a 668 square foot center aisle flanked by 837 square feet four horse stalls, a 510 -square foot feed area and a 260 square foot tack room including a bathroom. The loft, 625 square feet in area, runs along the length of the building and will be used for agricultural storage. The maximum ridge height of the stable is 890.0, with a finished floor of 870.5 for a total height is 19.50'. The proposed corral is adjacent to the stable and is 1,685 square feet. 15. Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request: Stable Requirements: Chapter 17.18. REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Stable access -way minimum 6' wide with roughened surface. Can't be entirely Existing paved -width varies from 15' to 36'; joining existing driveway to residence. ZC NO. 896 REQUIREMENTS -PROPOSED paved: Stable, corral, riding ring not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Stable, corral, riding ring - not in front yard; min. 35' from side prop line; may be located up to 25' in rear setback. Requires Commission direction. Complies. Stable and corral area relatively flat; access requires grading. Stable and portion of corral located in front yard. Requires a Variance. Complies w/setback distances Stable, riding ring, turnout min. 35' from any residential structure Distances from nearest residential structure: Stable: approx. 35 -ft.; Riding arena- 45' on subject lot. 120' from corral to closest house First story designed for equestrian uses; Household storage in loft. - Stable building to be designed for rural and agricultural uses only, but may include storage for vehicles, household items & other storage Stable size to include the entire footprint including loft, if any Ground floor -2,415 sq.ft;. 3,040 sq.ft. total; 837 sq.ft. stalls; 510 sq.ft. feed room; 260 sq.ft..tack room; 668 sq.ft. center isle. Loft -625 sq.ft; Agricultural spaces, including loft, feed & center isle -91.5% Tack use area - 8.5% Stable minimum of 60% shall be maintained for agricultural uses Stable maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be maintained for a tack room use Stable tack area may have sanitary and kitchen amenities Proposed: bathroom & kitchenette Stable tack area may have glazed openings Stable agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide & 8' high; appearance of a stable door Stable loft permitted Stable loft plate height may not exceed 7' Stable exterior area may not be paved Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous to stable. (Planning Commission may determine the size of a corral) Stable access slope not to exceed 25% Windows proposed in tack area. (condition of approval) Entry doors heights at entrance to stalls -4' wide; to feed room 8' - wide & min 8' high (Condition of approval) Loft proposed for agricultural storage The total height of the structure at its highest peak is proposed to be 19.5' (Plate height -7', per condition of approval.) Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval) Proposed 1,685 sq. ft. fenced corral. ZC NO. 896 Existing, approx. 10% access REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses or sleeping in the stable The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to stables and other equestrian uses. Stables/square footage approved since 2011. Location Square Feet/ No. of Stories 1 Pine Tree Lane 2,976 sq.ft. one story 77 Crest Rd E 3,456 sf. first story; 235 sf. loft 11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd. 890 sq. ft. one story 5 Buggy Whip 890 sq. ft. one story 0 Chestnut 900 sq. ft. one story 9 Chuckwagon Rd. 1,296 sq. ft. first floor / 792 sq. ft. loft 10 Crest Rd. W. 735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft 49 Eastfield 600 sq. ft. one story 12 Johns Cyn. Rd. 735 sq. ft. one story 3 Meadowlark 480 sf. first floor / 360 sf. loft 29 Middleridge Rd. S. 2,160 sq. ft. first floor / 800 sf. loft with center aisle 6 Portuguese Bend Rd. 450 sq. ft. one story 11 Saddleback -proposed 2,415 sq.ft. and 625 sq.ft. loft VARIANCES 16. Per the zoning ordinance, the maximum permitted disturbance of a lot is 40%. The project calls for 73,805 square feet of disturbance of the net lot area, (after LLAdj); or 75.04%. Currently the disturbed area (counting both lots) is at 46.9%, mostly on the developed lot. The disturbed area for the proposed dressage arena would be 24,500 square feet, which accounts for 33.2% of the total 73,805 square feet of the disturbed area and 25% of the net lot area of 98,358 sq.ft. 17. The stable and corral will be located to the side of the house, but not in line with it. They are proposed to be in front of the leading edge of the house, what is considered a front yard. Due to the configuration of the lot, along a very long curve of Saddleback, the front yard is also long. The applicant would like to utilize the already existing structure (garage) in this area as well as the mostly flat portion of this part of the lot to construct the stable and corral. 18. 1,250 square feet (70' by 17.85') of the 13,860 square foot dressage arena is proposed to be located in the front yard setback on what is now Lot 2. ZC NO. 896 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS 19. As stated earlier the disturbance of the lot is proposed to be 73,805 square feet of the 98,358 square foot net lot area or 75.04%. For the dressage arena alone, the disturbed area is proposed to be 24,500 square feet or 33.2% of the 73,805 square feet of disturbed area. 20. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 8,970 square feet or 9.1% of the net lot area, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas is proposed to be 19,350 square feet, or 19.7%, (35% permitted). This includes the stable and all other structures and hardscape and the deduction of miscellaneous structures (bbq/outdoor kitchen/fire place and trellises) and the existing paved driveway to the stable. The dressage arena is not counted towards lot coverage. 21. Proposed are three building pads on the property. The residential building pad will be 17,700 square feet and it includes the residence and the pool area accessory structures. The residential pad building coverage will be 6,050 square feet or 34.2%. The stable pad will be 7,270 square feet and the coverage on this pad will be 33.2%. The dressage arena could be considered pad number three, because the area will be less than 10% in slope, however there is no coverage on this pad. 22. Drainage from the project will be collected in underground pipes that will discharge to several dissipaters to be constructed on the site. A detailed drainage plan will be required at the Building Plan Check stage of this project. The applicant will also be required to comply with septic tank requirements of the County Health Department. 23. It will be a requirement that all utility lines to the residence and stable be placed underground. The applicant will have to comply with all other Municipal Code requirements such as, but not limited to, the lighting ordinance, roofing material, landscaping and low water efficiency ordinance, low impact development ordinance for storm water management on hillside properties (for single family residence), and others. CONCLUSION 24. Should the Planning Commission direct staff to bring a resolution of approval for this project, a condition should be included that prior to obtaining grading/building permits the applicant obtain clarification regarding grading in the restrictive use area and in Edison s easement, as well as locate the drain pipe, and if present, determine its function and design the drainage of the project accordingly. 25. When reviewing this development application, the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, Variances and Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Code pertaining to the stables and equestrian uses requirements. ZC NO. 896 26. In response for justification for a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the front yard, the applicant's agent states that the area of the proposed stable and corral is relatively flat and would require minimal grading, as much of the area was previously graded for the detached garage. The residential building pad is also developed, and the owner would like to utilize that pad for the reconstructed residence. She states that the configuration of the lot, along a very long curve on Saddleback, makes it difficult to place stable and corral elsewhere on the lot. There was no set aside area designated for a stable and corral during the development of this parcel. The applicant's engineer states that the developed lot already exceeds the maximum permitted disturbance at 68%. The new arena is creating the majority of the additional disturbance. However, that area will not be developed and will remain open space. She states that by tying the lots together, a non -conforming condition will be eliminated (existing garage in setback), and no additional house will be constructed in the area. The construction of the arena will ensure that no structure is developed on what is not the second lot. She further states that only a small portion (1,250 sq.ft.) of the dressage arena will be located in the front setback. The area will not be developed or paved and will remain open space. Only a 3 -rail fence will be constructed along the arena. Even with tying of the lots, with the irregular shape of the lot, there isn't another place on the lot to construct a riding ring or an arena. The applicant's agent states that the proposed stable, corral and arena are consistent with the City's General Plan and are in furtherance of the City's goal to encourage equestrian uses. The development will update the neighborhood, as new structures will be built and all of the structures will be up to code and will meet Fire Department and Health Department requirements. 27. The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3)(Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. ZC NO. 896 Zoning Case No. 896 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE & DETACHED GARAGE ON DEVELOPED LOT (LOT #1) NEW RESIDENCE, POOL, STABLE, CORRAL, RIDING ARENA & ACCES. (Combined lots) Front: 50 ft. from front property line Side: 20 ft. from side property line (10' from roadway esmnt) Rear: 50 ft from rear property line STRUCTURES Residence Garages Entryway Service yard Stable 3023 sq. ft. 1638 sq. ft. 130 sq. ft. 96 sq.ft. 0 Residence Garage Service yard Stable Swimming pool/spa/eqpmnt Porch/stable Porch/house Trellises (2) BBQ/FP/Kitchen Basement 4745 sq. ft. 659 sq. ft. 96 sq. ft. 2415 sq. ft. (not incl loft) 550 sq.ft. 135 sq.ft. 370 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft. 78 sq.ft. 342 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required if size of structure enlarged by more than 999 sf. in a 36 -month period; for grading and for new structure). CUP: stable, corral & riding arena VR: disturbance, setback & yard encroachment TOTAL 4,887 sq. ft. TOTAL 9,468 sq.ft. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE 9.65 % 8,970 sq.ft. or 9.1% of 98,358 sf. net lot area w/deductions TOTAL I..OT COVERAGE 25% 19.7% of 98,358 sf. net lot area w/deductions (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL 25.3% of 19,350 sq. ft. building pad 34.2% of 17,700 sq. ft. pad 33.22% of 7,270 sq.ft. pad BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) Stable GRADING 4,650 cy cut and 4,650 cy fill; plus approx. 13,000 cy overexcvation and compaction Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 46.95% 73,805 sq.ft. or 75.04% (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 2,415 sf. stable; 625 sq.ft. loft & 1,685 sq.ft corral; 13,860 sq.ft. riding arena & 550 SQ. FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A Existing from Saddleback Rd. ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing from Saddleback Rd. VIEWS N/A Planning Commission condition PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission condition ZC NO. 896 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the ZC NO. 896 provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; 13. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; 13. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 896 City OS, /i INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7D Mtg. Date: 1/19/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 888 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOT 5 -MR) RA -S-1,1.28 ACRES (GROSS) MR AND MRS. JOHN POST BOLTON ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing in this case at their September 15, 2015 meeting and visited the property on October 20, 2015. 2. At the October 20, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the project subject to removal of stairs and wall from the north easement area and also suggested that the applicant reduce the encroachment of the new addition along the north side of the house to follow the footprint of an existing encroachment on that side of the house. 3. The applicants requested continuance of the project so that they can study their options. 4. They have recently submitted a revised plan, showing modifications to the previously requested terraced areas in the rear of the house and eliminating two of the four originally requested retaining walls forming the rear terraces; but are requesting to keep the proposed addition along the north side of the house which projects 2.5 feet beyond an encroachment of the existing house and to keep the retaining wall in the north side yard setback and easement. The wall would allow for a walkway around the north side of the house and the basement light well on the west side of the house to the lower level where a patio and pool are proposed. ZC NO. 888 0 t: Printed on Recycled Paper 5. The applicants applied to the RHCA Board for license agreement to be able to locate the retaining wall in question in the easement. The RHCA Board considered this request on January 14, 2016 but will most likely not render a decision until mid to late February. 6. Pursuant to the California Permit Streamlining Act, a decision on this case must be rendered at tonight's meeting and the Resolution adopted within 30 -days. (The next Planning Commission meeting is on Feb. 16th, which is 28 days from Jan 19th.). The Planning Commission and the applicant have the following options: • Approve the request subject to the RHCA approval of the encroachment into the easement. If the RHCA approves the encroachment, no other action would be required. If they deny the encroachment, the applicant could submit a revised plan to staff, without the encroachment. Staff would then be able to approve it as a minor modification to the project, providing that it is a lesser project than what the Commission approved. A condition to that effect could be stipulated in the Resolution of approval. • Deny the project, in which case the applicant could not re -apply for the same or similar request within one year of the denial date, (Section 17.30.040). The applicant could also appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 30 -days of the decision. The fee for the appeal would be 2/3 of the original application fee. • Approve some aspects of the development but not approve others. In this case the applicant would not be able to re -apply for the denied portion of the project for one-year. As in the above scenario, the applicant could appeal to the City Council the entire decision of the Planning Commission or just the part that was denied. • The applicant could withdraw the request; wait for the RHCA decision and then re -apply to the Planning Commission. In this case there wouldn't be a time restriction for re -applying, however the applicant would be required to pay the application fee again. 7. A condition exists on this property from previous discretionary approvals, which requires that the Planning Commission review any development on the property. 8. The property is located in the OZD-1 District (Overlay RAS-1 Zone) and is divided by Middleridge Lane North along 130 foot street frontage. The OZD-1 zoning was established within the RAS-1 district to allow modernization, reconstruction or enlargement of homes located on unique lots generally characterized by steep terrain, smaller than typical lots and smaller than typical homes in the City, lots that are divided by a road and lots where redevelopment is difficult due to setback requirements. ZC NO. 888 Properties in the OZD-1 are allowed reduced front yard setback for locating primary structures, including attached garages, of 30' from the roadway easement line, (elsewhere in the City the front yard setback is 50' from the roadway easement line). In addition, if the existing residence encroaches into the side yard setback by no more than 10', the structure may be reconstructed within the same footprint. However, any new addition must comply with the 20' side yard setback requirement. Other requirements of this zone include: only one driveway is permitted and 60% of the front yard area must be landscaped (Chapter 17.17 of the Zoning Ordinance). The gross lot area, including the street is 55,756 square feet, (1.28 acres), of which approximately 22,520 square feet is located on the west side of Middleridge Lane North; 40.3% of the gross lot area. The net lot area for development purposes is 36,943 square feet. 9. The subject property was originally developed with a 2007 square foot residence and 527 square foot garage to up to 30' front yard setback. In 2003, with a modification in 2004 a 1,153 square foot addition was approved with a Variance for encroachment of portion of the addition into the front and side setbacks. In 2007 a variance was granted to allow a trellis, seating wall and a barbeque to be located in the side setback. REQUEST AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 10. The applicants request as follows: a Site Plan Review for a 1,055 square foot addition to the existing residence, a 1,260 square foot basement, 100 square foot covered porch, 240 square feet attached trellis, grading of 1,510 cubic yards of dirt to construct a 492 square foot pool (including spa and infinity over -flow feature), varying heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls to create terraced areas in the rear of the pool for patios. The grading includes 225 c.y. cut and fill for future stable/corral and 585 cubic yards for basement and pool excavation, of which 460 c.y. would be exported. The request for Variances includes encroachment with the entire front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the front 30' setback and with 190 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the north side yard setback. A new basement is proposed under a portion of the existing house, of which 125 square feet would encroach into the north side yard setback (in line with existing house encroachment); and 190 square feet of the basement would encroach into the same setback, and be located under the new addition. Further, 46 sq.ft. of the proposed light well would encroach 5.8' into the north side yard setback, and portions of the retaining walls, including the retaining wall in the easement, would also encroach into the north side yard setback. The retaining walls vary in height, but not exceed 5'. However, they do not average out to 2.5' in height, and therefore require a variance. With the future grading for the stable and corral the disturbance of the lot would be 50.4%, which also requires a variance. ZC NO. 888 0 11. Although the property is located in the OZD-1 zone, a Variance is required for the encroachment with the additions, because the front addition of 395 sq.ft. is proposed to encroach between 16' to 19' into the reduced 30' front yard setback; the side addition is proposed to encroach up to 7.8' into the north side yard setback, and the new basement would encroach between 5' and 7.8' into the north side setback, for a total of basement encroachment of 315 square feet. Along the south side of the property, also in the setback, the applicants propose a staircase connecting to the terraced patios below the swimming pool. The wall along the stairs will not exceed 3'in height, which is permitted. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, walls that do not exceed 3' in height are permitted along driveways, stairs and walkways. 12. The terraced patios below the swimming pool have been redesigned to include two up to 5' high retaining walls between the terraces, rather than the previously proposed 3, but lower walls. 13. A 450 square foot future stable and corral location and access thereto was approved with the previous applications and is proposed across from the main residence off of Middleridge Lane North. There exists a flat play area to the east of the proposed location for the stable, which would not need grading or additional disturbance for construction of a stable, except for the access. However, majority of this area is located in the front setback. Therefore, a variance would be required for locating a stable and corral there. If a stable is proposed in the future it would need to go through a CUP review by the Planning Commission and the applicant could decide at that time where to locate the stable and corral. Pursuant to Section 17.16.010 a lot divided by an improved roadway, for development purposes, has two front yard setbacks of 50' from the roadway easement line; one on each side of the road. 14. With the additions and future stable the structural coverage on the net lot would be 6,448 square feet or 17.45% and with the allowed deductions 6,188 square feet or 16.75%, (max permitted 20%). The total lot coverage, structures and hardscape, would be 11,558 square feet or 31.3%, (max. permitted 35%). 15. The residential building pad, outside the 30' front yard setback and with the addition of the flat area behind the pool will be 7,920 square feet and the coverage will be 5,398 square feet or 68.2%, which excludes the allowable deductions of the trellis, barbeque and covered porch, (guideline - 30%). Currently the building pad coverage on the existing 6,530 square foot residential building pad is 58.4%, and was previously approved. The future stable pad would be 1,500 square feet and with a 450 square foot stable the coverage would be 30%. ZC NO. 888 16. Grading for this project would entail 585 cubic yards excavation of dirt for the basement and pool, of which 460 cubic yards is proposed to be exported. Grading for the future stable is shown as 225 cubic yards total. Additionally, 700 cubic yards of grading, including over excavation and compaction is required for the yard areas and walls, for a total of 1510 cubic yards of cut and fill. 17. The disturbed area of the lot is currently 44.7% and will increase to 50.4%, which requires a variance. The resulting slopes behind the terraced yards will have 2:1 gradient. 18. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for grant of a Variance, the applicants' representative state in part that the proposed development is consistent with most homes on Middleridge Lane North. The area is zoned OZD-1 because the existing conditions do not conform to the general city zoning. The lots along Middleridge lane are narrow and are divided by the road, leaving very small building pads for construction. The existing rear slope is extremely steep, up to 1.5:1 slope, and means that in order to gain any flat area in the rear, retaining walls must be used, as typical grading method would not work in this condition. In addition, in order to gain some back yard and to "catch" the steep slope, the terraced walks with planters and the retaining walls are necessary. Otherwise a very tall wall would be required. She states that the existing residence already encroaches into the side and front setback and they're proposing to further encroach. Encroaching into setbacks is necessary for any significant improvement of the property. With planters and landscaping, the visual impact of the project will be lessened. The applicants state that there already exists a staircase along the north side of the yard and that they would be relocating it. 19. RHCA review and approval of the project is required. 20. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 21. The Planning Commission requested information regarding encroachments of other homes along Middleridge Lane N. The applicant submitted information showing that most of the homes along Middleridge Lane N. encroach to up to 30' front yard setback (currently allowed in the OZD-1 district) and several encroach further than the 30' from roadway easement. In addition, many encroach into the side setbacks. Recently, the Planning Commission approved additions in the front and side yard setbacks at 23 Middleridge Lane N. The side addition was approved along an exiting ZC NO. 888 encroachment of up to 10'into the side setback and the front addition into the 30' front yard setback. 269 square feet of the addition was approved to encroach 13'-15' further than the allowed 30' front yard setback, and 210 square feet of proposed living area and basement were approved to encroach up to 10' into the side yard setback. Staff was informed that the applicant will not construct all of the addition and has scaled down the project. 22. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; is in keeping with the desired development pattern and character of the City; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. The Planning Commission must also consider the criteria for granting a Site Plan and Variances. ZONING CASE NO. 888 SITE PLAN REVIEW & VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 SETBACKS - OZD-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. & GARAGE ADDITIONS & POOL; GRADING, RETAINING WALLS Front: 30 ft. from rd. easmnt. line Side: 20 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR required for additions, pool, grading and walls; Variance is required for encroachment into setbacks, non- conforming wall height & to exceed max. permitted disturbance Residence Garages Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable Attch. Porch- Service yard Trellis BBQ Basement 3105 sq.ft. 615 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 207 sq.ft. 53 sq.ft. None Residence Garages Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable -future Attch porch- Service yard Trellis BBQ Attch trellis Basement 4160 sq.ft. 615 sq.ft. 492 sq.ft. 35 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 207 sq.ft 53 sq.ft. 240 sq.ft. 1260 sq.ft. TOTAL 4,076 sq.ft. TOTAL 6,448 sq. ft. GRADING N/A Total of 1,510 c.y. of cut and fill, incl. 585 c.y. excavation for basement and pool. 225 c.y. for future stable. 700 c.y. over excavation and compaction for the yard and walls. Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.). Must be balanced on -site. STRUCTURAL LOT 11.03%; with deductions 10.33%% 17.45% of 36,943 s.f. net lot area; w/ allowances 16.75% COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 19.7% w/allowances 31.3% or 11,558 sq.ft. of ZC NO. 888 (35% maximum) 36,943 sq.ft. net lot area; with allowances BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 6,530 sq.ft. pad w/58.4% coverage 1500.sq.ft pad w/30% coverage 7,920 sq.ft. pad w/ 5,398 sq.ft. or 68.2% coverage w/ deductions. 1500.sq.ft pad w/30% coverage (30% max. -guideline) Residential Stable -future DISTURBED AREA 44.7% previously disturbed - 50.4% proposed - Variance requested 1 (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ_FT. Future 450 sq.ft. and adj. corral Future 450 sq.ft. and corral & 550 S .FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS From Middleridge N. From Middleridge N. ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway Existing driveway VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review HOMES IN VICINITY: Address Lot size (excl. road easement) House size 9 Middleridge Ln. N 49,600 sq.ft. 2,937 sq.ft. 11 Middleridge Ln. N 50,530 sq.ft. 3,960 sq.ft. 15 Middleridge Ln. N 44,000 sq.ft. 3,101 sq.ft. 19 Middleridge Ln. N. 49,220 sq.ft. 2,728 sq.ft 21 Middleridge Ln. N. 53,140 sq.ft. 3,777 sq. ft 22 Middleridge Ln. N 37,030 sq.ft. 2,257 sq.ft. 23 Middleridge Ln. N. 42,250 sq.ft. Approved recently 3,837 sq.ft. 17 Middleridge Ln. N 49,220 sq.ft. 3,105 sq.ft. Proposed 4,160 VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and ZC NO. 888 C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ZC NO. 888 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 8A Mtg. Date: 01/19/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 898 46 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 97-EF) RA -S-1, 1.8 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) MR. AND MRS. ROBERT MILLER TONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT JANUARY 7, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller, request a Site Plan Review and Variances to construct improvements on their property at 46 Eastfield Drive. The construction consists of: a 1,835 square foot addition to their existing residence for a total of 4,078 square feet residence, and a 375 square foot raised deck with stairs leading down to it from the house pad and grading of total of 700 cubic yards of dirt. The variances are requested for: 1) the proposed deck wall does not meet the requirement of 2.5' high wall average and will be close to 5' average, 2) 150 square foot portion of the proposed addition encroaches into the front yard setback, 3) request to retain an existing wood shed and service yard in the side setback, and 4) exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field trip to the property. ZC NO. 898 46 Eastfield. BACKGROUND 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 1.8 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 65,880 square feet or 1.51 acres. Records indicate that the residence was constructed in 1955. Through the years several additions were made to the residence. Grading for a corral area was approved in 1960 and a 144 square foot stable/tack room was also constructed in 1960. The pool was constructed in 1959 and in 1961 a pool shelter/guest house was constructed. The pool shelter/guest house was subject to a code enforcement issue in 2007, as a previous owner renovated the structure, constructed a deck with flat roof and constructed outdoor barbeque without permits. Following code enforcement action, the owner obtained the required permissions and building permits, but has not corrected the roof configuration. The RHCA Architectural Committee is enforcing the slope of the roof. 4. Currently the lot is developed with a 2,243 square foot residence, 420 square foot garage, 465 square foot swimming pool, 680 square foot guest house, several trellises, sheds, and other amenities. One of the sheds and the service yard are located in side setbacks and require a variance or must be removed. The pool equipment area is located in the side setback as well. Since there are records of permits for the pool from 1959, the equipment area would have been constructcd at the same time and is considered legal -nonconforming. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 5. The 375 raised deck is greater than 12" out of grade and is proposed to be 5' out of grade on the downhill side. The deck and associated walls do not meet the requirement of 2.5' high wall average, and will be close to 5' average. This condition requires a variance. 6. The proposed addition of 1,835 contains a 150 square foot portion that encroaches into the required 50 -foot front yard setback by 10 feet, leaving a 40 -foot front yard setback, which requires a variance. 7. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 26,600 square feet (40.38% of the net lot area), which is proposed to be increased due to the deck construction to 27,800 square feet; an increase of 1,200 square feet, to 42.20%, which requires a variance. The architect states that the proposed disturbance follows the boundary of the block walls and stairway. Grading for this project will entail 100 cubic yards cut, 100 cubic yards fill, plus over -excavation of 250 cubic yards and recompaction of 250 cubic yards, for a total of 700 cubic yards of dirt. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. 8. The applicants request to retain a 100 square foot shed and 96 square foot service yard in the west side yard setback, which also require a variance. 9. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will not be increased and will remain at 9,950 square feet. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 62.56%, which includes all of the structures on this pad, but excludes permissible deductions for covered porch, detached trellis, and barbecue for a total building pad coverage of 54.81%. This is an increase from 33.16% from the existing condition. The code provides a guideline of 30% maximum coverage. There is an existing building pad of 2,840 square feet where a pool and guest house is located. The total building pad coverage on this pad remains at 41.55%. No changes are being proposed to this building pad. The future stable and corral are proposed to be set aside on an existing stable building pad, which is 3,375 square feet in area. The coverage on this pad with a future 450 - square foot stable and an existing shed of 185 square feet will be 15.26% with an allowed deduction of 120 square feet for the shed. No changes are being proposed to this future building pad. A fourth pad comprised of the 375 square foot deck is proposed with a total building pad coverage of 100%. 10. The structural lot coverage proposed, with allowed deductions, will be 7,854 square feet or 11.9% net lot coverage. The total lot coverage will be 13,916 square feet or 21.1% net lot coverage. 11. The architect states that 150 square feet of the proposed 1,835 addition will encroach 10 feet into the front setback. They advise that while the lot is larger than those in the direct vicinity of the property, the majority of it is sloped and unbuildable. By utilizing a portion of the existing flat space, be it in the front setback, it allows for less grading and less overall disturbance of the lot. The addition remains within the existing retaining wall and flat area on the site, and the total size of the residence will be in line with other newer homes in the neighborhood. 12. The proposed raised deck is to be located between two existing walls and will not be obtrusive, it is on the side of the addition and not in setbacks. 13. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 14. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements and all other Zoning Code requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. 15. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City (except as related to the variances), including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption in that the project is an addition. ZC NO. 898 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information on y) Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (excl. roadway easements) 13 Openbrand 3,700 (1955/1961 216,057 24 Outrider Road 5,551 (1993/1994) 112,820 48 Eastfield Dr. 2,898 (1956/1966) 78,410 45 Eastfield Dr. 5,820 (1954/1959) 93,650 44 Eastfield Dr. 3,186 (2007) 35,720 50 Eastfield Dr. 5,325 (1999) 50,530 46 Eastfield Proposed 4,078 77,970 NOTE:The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE , POOL, GUEST HOUSE, GAZEBO, NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, POOL, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, SET -ASIDE STABLE/CORRAL LOCATION Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard 2243 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft 465 sq.ft. 35 sq. ft. 680 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft 465 sq. ft. 325 sq. ft. 185 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard Raised deck Stable (set -aside) 4078 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft. 35 sq.ft. 680sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft 325 sq.ft. 185 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 375 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 5,639 sq. ft. TOTAL 8,288 sq.ft. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.9% w/allowed deductions 7,854 sq.ft. w/ allowed deductions or 11.9% of 65,880 sq. ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 17.2% with exclusions/ allowances 13,916 sq.ft or 21.1% of 65,880 sq ft. net lot w/allowances (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 33.16% 41.55% 0.00% 0.00% 54.81% of 9,950 sq.ft. residential pad 41.55% of 2,840 15.3% sq.ft. of 3,375 sq. ft. 100% of 375 sq.ft. Residence Pool Stable (min. 450 sq. ft. stable) Deck GRADING N/A 100 c.y. cut for house, 250 c.y. overexcavation for house = 350 c.y. total cut 100 c.y. fill for deck, 250 c.y. recompaction = 350 c.y. total fill SUM = 700 c.y. Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site (except basement) DISTURBED AREA 40.38% 42.20% 27,800 sq.ft. of net lot area (40% max; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 450 sq. ft. future proposed 550 sq. ft. future corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL} STABLE ACCESS N/A Off main private driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/ A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review , SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan a • all requirements of the zoning ordinance; ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 8B Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 894 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) RA -S-2, 10.35 ACRES MR. AND MRS. TOM JANKOVICH BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 7, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich request a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 6,631 square foot single-family residence, 2 new garage(s) for a total of 1,308 square feet, a new pool (900 square feet) and spa (86 square feet) with a 140 square foot catchment basin, 1,910 square feet of attached covered porches, a 1,070 square foot pond, a 245 square foot koi pond gazebo, new driveway and turnaround access and site retaining walls that exceed 3 feet in height. A variance is requested as 325 square feet of the residence and 3 covered patios are proposed to be located in the side yard setback. Two of the covered porches will encroach between 0' to 7' into the side setback and a third porch, (130 square feet) will encroach in its entirety into the side setback, beyond the residence encroachment. The applicants also request slight modification to the previously approved corral and wall in the front yard. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field trip to the property. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. BACKGROUND 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 10.35 acres. The net lot area is 9.56 acres or 416,381 square feet. However, much of the lot is undevelopable due to the steep eastern and southern slope, and the flag lot shape further constrains the lot. The lot is located south of Crest Road East and south of a shared driveway. 4. The property is currently developed with a 3,275 square foot residence, a 591 square foot garage, and a 96 square foot service yard. A 3,456 square foot stable with a loft was recently approved (Resolution 2015-07). 5. In July 2015 the Planning Commission approved a request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance to construct a stable with corral that required grading and to allow the stable and corral in the front yard area. The approved proposed stable would contain 3,691 square feet, which includes 3,456 square feet on the ground floor plus a 235 square foot loft. The approved corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. Concurrently, the Planning Commission approved a lot line adjustment that removed the existing lot line between 77 Crest Road East (Lot 1, Tract 27526) and the adjoining vacant lot to the north (Lot 2, Tract 27526), merging the two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into the current single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.35 acres. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. With the previously approved stable, the disturbed area was approved at 11.88% of the net lot area. The proposed disturbed area will be 14.29%, below the maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). The grading will consist of 2,645 cubic yards of cut (for the stable, pond, corral, driveways, yard areas, pool/spa excavation, and over -excavation), and 2,395 cubic yards of fill (for the stable, corral, driveways, yard areas, and recompaction) with a total export of 250 cubic yards from the pool and spa. 7. The new residence is proposed in the same general location as the current residence and will range from 14'77" to 17'27"plus chimneys in height at the highest ridge. 8. The property drains to the south/southeast and will be collected in two on -site underground dissipaters and one 360 square foot biofiltration unit that will receive and treat the stormwater from the site. The biofiltration unit is proposed in the side yard setback with walls not to exceed 3 feet in height. The walls for this unit are allowed in the setback (Section 17.16.150G), as they are associated with "a drainage device." This project is subject to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance, due to land development activities for construction of a new single-family residence where one acre ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. or more of land is disturbed and where the project adds 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. (Chapter 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). 9. The applicants will continue to utilize the existing driveway approach to the residence. Per the Fire Department requirement, the driveway will be widened to 20 feet and will be moved slightly to the north, outside the side setback. The existing primary driveway is 10,330 square feet and will be enlarged by 930 square feet for a total of 11,260 square feet. 750 square feet of asphalt Guest Parking is proposed to be integrated into, but adjacent to the circular driveway and will accommodate 3 parking spaces. A landscaped island will be retained around the circular driveway. The applicants also plan to preserve the large Oak Trees inside the island. 10. A 245 square foot Koi Pond Gazebo is proposed on a bridge spanning over the 1,070 square foot Koi Pond. 11. The applicants propose to substantially utilize the existing 34,815 square foot building pad for the new construction, and enlarge it by 4,985 square feet on the flat space to the south and west of the existing residence to 39,800 square feet. The total building coverage on this pad will be 15,194 square feet or 38.2%, which includes all of the structures including the stable, but excludes the permissible deductions of a portion of the attached porch, the gazebo and the fireplace. 12. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 15,857 square feet or 3.8%, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed will be 36,547 square feet or 8.8%, (35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions. 13. The applicant proposes a retaining wall that would border the lower portion of the building pad, and which would range from a curb to 5' in height, with an average height of 2.5'. A 4' to 5' wide D.G. walkway is proposed behind the retaining wall and for access to the pool equipment area. 14. The applicant is also proposing to relocate a portion of the previously approved 3' high wall closer to the front yard setback line to create a wider corral area to the north of the stable. 15. In describing the application the applicants' agent states, in part, that the site already has a graded pad, driveway and an area for a stable and corral, which will remain and will be re -used to minimize impact on the lot. The grading will consist of re- grading of existing areas, and new grading for the entire site with a total cut of 2,645 cubic yards, total fill of 2,395 cubic yards, and 250 cubic yards to be exported. The driveway is designed to allow for emergency vehicles turnaround. 325 square feet of the residence and 3 attached porches will encroach into the side setback and the applicant advises this is due to the "flag lot" shape and the dramatic slope that makes much of the lot undevelopable without creating additional disturbance. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. 16. The applicant's agent further states that the project will utilize the existing common driveway and the proposed residence is over 250 linear feet from the termination of the common driveway off of Crest Road East and a new fire department driveway and turnaround access is being provided on the property only. Therefore, the access to the properties above will not be affected. There are 3 large trees in the center of the property that are being preserved subject to the fire department and Fuel Mod Unit approval of their location in the driveway turnaround area. 17. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 18. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variance and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 19. This project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape ordinance and landscaping plans and certifications of water conservation will be required. Fuel modification review and approval from the Fire Department is also required. 20. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements including the Low Impact Development Ordinance, and all other zoning requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines and a new septic tank. 21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZC 894 NEARBY PROPERTIES For information onl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area (excl. roadway easements) 73 Crest Road E. 4,375 (1983/1985) 2.78 71 Crest Road E. *3,109 (recently approved)_ 2.35 67 Crest Road E. 4,289 (1977/1990) 3.89 83 Crest Road E. 5,723 (1977/1984) 2.36 85 Crest Road E. 4,685 (1951/1954) 3.13 87 Crest Road E. 3,969 (1968/1973) 1.91 91 Crest Road E. 5,156 (2004) 3.90 AVERAGE 4,472 2.9 77 Crest Road E. Existing 3,275 6,631 Proposed 9.56 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records ZC. NO. 894 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE(S), POOL/SPA, STABLE, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool + spa Pool equipment Stable Att.Cov. Porches Entryway Koi House Koi Pond Fireplace Service yard 3275 sq.ft. 591 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 3456 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. Residence Garages Pool + spa Pool equipment Stable Att. Cov. Porches Entryway Koi House Koi Pond Fireplace Service yard 6631 sq.ft. 1308 sq.ft. 1126 sq.ft. 40 sq.ft. 3456 sq.ft. 1910 sq.ft. 95 sq.ft. 245 sq.ft 1070 sq.ft 50 sq.ft 96 sq.ft (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 7,418 sq.ft. TOTAL 16,027 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 0.88% 15,857 sq.ft. w/allowances or 3.8% of 416,381 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 4.39% 36,547 sq.ft. w/allowances or 8. 8% of 416,381.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 21.31% 38.18% of 39,800 sq.ft. pad GRADING N/A 2,645 cubic yards of cut and 2,395 cubic yards of fill = 250 cubic yards of export Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 11.88% 14.3% of the net lot area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 3,456 sq.ft, 215 sq.ft. loft, , 2,000 sq.ft. corral approved & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A approved ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required finding. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That 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; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.:8C Mtg. Date: 01/19/16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR NATALIE C. KARPELES, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED ADDITION OF CHAPTER 17.29 TO TITLE 17, AS WELL AS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE DELIVERY, CULTIVATION, AND DISPENSING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. DATE PUBLISHED: JANUARY 7, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: A) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 OF THE RHMC (amendments underlined) B) RESOLUTION NO. 2016-01 (recommendation that the City Council to adopt an Ordinance prohibiting cultivation, delivery and dispensing of medical marijuana within the City's boundaries). BACKGROUND In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, entitled the Compassionate Use Act, the intent of which was to enable persons who are in need of medical marijuana to use it without fear of prosecution under limited, specified circumstances. In 2004, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420 (referred to as the Medical Marijuana Program) to clarify the scope of Proposition 215 and to provide qualifying patients and primary caregivers who cultivate marijuana with a limited defense to certain specified State criminal statutes. Assembly Bills 2650 (2010) and 1300 (2011) amended the Medical Marijuana Program to expressly recognize the authority of counties and cities to "adopt local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or collective" and to civilly and criminally enforce such ordinances. In 2013, in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc.1, the California Supreme Court held that "[n]othing in the [Compassionate Use Act] or the [Medical Marijuana Program] expressly or impliedly limits the inherent authority of a local jurisdiction, by its own ordinances, to regulate the use of its land...." Additionally, in Maral v. City of Live Oak2, the Court of Appeal affirmed the ability of local government entities to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana under its land -use authority, holding that "there is no right - and certainly no constitutional right - to cultivate medical marijuana...." On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law - Assembly Bills 266 and 243, and Senate Bill 643 - collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). Prior to the passage of the MMRSA, State law provided no legal mechanism for commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes and Federal law prohibited all cultivation of marijuana. Until the MMRSA was passed, cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in California was restricted to individual qualified patients or their primary care givers for non-commercial purposes and limited to personal quantities. The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to qualified patients. The MMRSA also contains new statutory provisions that: • Set up a "dual licensing" scheme which requires dispensaries and cultivators to obtain a local license prior to requesting and obtaining a license from the State; no dispensary or cultivation activity may lawfully operate without both a State and local license. • Allow the City to completely prohibit the delivery of marijuana by requiring a local government that wishes to prevent marijuana delivery activity3 from operating within the local government's boundaries to enact an ordinance affirmatively banning such delivery activity (see Business & Professions Code § 19340(a)). • Preserves the ability of a qualified patient and/or primary caregiver to cultivate for personal, non-commercial purposes, sets new limits on such cultivation, and exempts such personal cultivation from State cultivation licensing requirements. Furthermore, the MMRSA allows local governments to enact ordinances expressing their intent to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana and their intent 56 Cal.4'" 729 2 221 Cal.App.4'" 975 3 As defined in Business and Professions Code § 19300.5 not to administer a conditional permit program for the cultivation of marijuana (see Health & Safety Code § 11362.777(c)(4)). • Expressly provide that the MMRSA does not supersede or limit local law enforcement activity, enforcement of local ordinances, or enforcement of local permit or licensing requirements regarding marijuana (see Bus. & Prof. Code § 19315(a)). • Expressly provide that the MMRSA does not limit the authority or remedies of a local government under any provision of law regarding marijuana, including but not limited to local governments' right to make and enforce within its limits all police regulations not in conflict with general laws (see Bus. & Prof. Code § 19316(c)). The MMRSA, however, also states that if a city or county has not adopted land use regulations by March 1, 2016 to either regulate or ban the cultivation, distribution and use of marijuana, the State will be the sole authority that issues cultivation licenses in that jurisdiction, meaning no local license will be required. Specifically, Health & Safety Code § 11362.777(a)(4) states: If a city, county, or city and county does not have land use regulations or ordinances regulating or prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program pursuant to this section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the division shall be the sole licensing authority for medical marijuana cultivation applicants in that city, county, or city and county. Commercial medical marijuana activities, as well as cultivation for personal medical use as allowed by the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program, can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents. Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. While the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program provide limited immunity from specified State marijuana laws, this immunity does not grant arty land use rights or create the right to maintain a public nuisance. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS Until now, the City's land use regulations were not required to expressly prohibit commercial cultivation of medicinal marijuana because it was not legal (pursuant to State or Federal law) and because such commercial cultivation is not recognized as a specifically allowed use in the City's land use districts. Prior to the effective date of this ordinance, the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana in the City is prohibited to the extent such activities are prohibited by the Federal Controlled Substances Act, or other law. Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (the City's Zoning Ordinance) Lists specifically permitted uses within the City's various zones. As medical marijuana dispensaries are not permitted by right or with a conditional use permit, they are prohibited. Because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code does not currently expressly and separately prohibit the cultivation or delivery of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA requires the City to adopt an ordinance explicitly regulating commercial cultivation by March 1, 2016 to ensure the State is not the sole regulator of cultivation activities. Additionally, the MMRSA also contains language that requires delivery services to be expressly prohibited by local ordinance, if the City wishes to do so. Attached to this Memorandum is the proposed Resolution recommending to the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17, as well as proposed amendments to sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code in order to impose an express ban on marijuana cultivation, delivery, and dispensaries within the City. If adopted by the City Council, the ordinance will: • Prohibit the cultivation, delivery and distribution of marijuana in all zones within the City by expressly listing them as a non -permitted uses; • Add Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to extensively regulate the delivery, cultivation and dispensing of marijuana within the City. Specifically, Chapter 17.29 will: o Prohibit mobile marijuana dispensaries¢ from operating within the City; o Expressly prohibit deliveries of marijuana both within the City, as well as deliveries to and from the City; o Expressly prohibit the cultivation of marijuana for commercial and non- commercial purposes by any person (including qualified patients and primary caregivers) anywhere in the City; and o Regard any violation of the ordinance to be a nuisance subject to summary abatement, and/or administrative citation, among other enforcement remedies RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. The MMRSA identifies a new business model for the distribution of marijuana: "mobile dispensaries." Mobile dispensaries involve the commercial transportation of medical marijuana to qualified patients or caregivers by a dispensary or via any technology platform, which may be independently licensed or owned by the dispensary. According to the provisions of the MMRSA, mobile dispensaries must be expressly identified and banned in order to be prohibited. 2016-01 (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance amending sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code; and add Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT A Amend Title 17 (ZONING) as follows: 1. Add subparagraph B. to Section 17.08.050 - Zoning compliance required. A. Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B. The cultivation, delivery, and mobile dispensing of marijuana are highly objectionable uses; as such the cultivation, delivery and mobile dispensing of marijuana are expressly prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17.16.020 B and Chapter 17.29). Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license, or other entitlement for the cultivation, delivery and mobile dispensing of marijuana. 2. Add subparagraphs 3, 4 and 5 to Section 17.16.020 B - Permitted and prohibited uses. 17.16.020 - Permitted and prohibited uses. A. Uses permitted in the RA -S zone as primary uses include: 1. Single-family residences; 2. Tree, bush or field crops provided there is no retail sale from the premises and provided the activity does not cause undue traffic not normally associated with residential use. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. -6- Cannabis delivery, including the use by a medical marijuana dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled by the medical marijuana dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which enables persons, qualified patients, and/or primary caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, defined in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended. 4. Commercial cannabis activities, including cultivation, possession, manufacture, possessing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of medical marijuana or medical marijuana products, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code section 19319, related to qualified patients and/or primary caregivers. 5. Cultivation of cannabis or medical marijuana, including the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana or cannabis, defined in Chapter 3.5 of the Health and Safety Code, as may be amended. 3. Add Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulation to Title 17 (ZONING) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Tile 17 Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulation Sections: 17.29.010 Definitions 17.29.020 Prohibition 17.29.030 Public Nuisance Sec. 17.29.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11018. Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical Cannabis product, except as set forth in -7- Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of Cannabis. Deliveny shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products. Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for the use of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale. Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to, concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7. Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safehj Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seq. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any Dispensary, clinic, cooperative, association, club, business or group which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation or Delivery, of Medical Cannabis to a Person. Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization. The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or salesperson. Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended. Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 3362.7, as may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Sec. 17.29.020 Prohibition. -8- A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City. B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall: 1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City; 2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose; or 3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures, baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose. C. This section is meant to prohibit all activities for which a State license is required. Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any activity for which a State license is required under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. D. Marijuana cultivation by any person or entity, including clinics, collectives, cooperatives and dispensaries, is prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No permit, whether conditional or otherwise, shall be issued for the establishment of such activity. No Person, including a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, shall Cultivate any amount of Cannabis in the City, even for medicinal purposes, except where the City is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on such activity. Sec. 17.29.030 Public Nuisance. Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation of any provision of this Article shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy available to the City. -9- 10 ATTACHMENT B 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2016-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, DELIVERY AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2016-01. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rolling Hills Municipal Code ("RHMC") Section 17.08.050 provides that uses not specifically permitted in the RHMC are prohibited. Section 17.16.020 provides a list of permitted uses and prohibited uses. Commercial uses are not specifically permitted; therefore, they are prohibited. However, the City has determined that recent developments in State Law regarding the regulation of medical marijuana make it necessary to clarify that uses such as the cultivation, delivery and dispensation of marijuana are expressly banned in the City of Rolling Hills. Section 2. The Project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and it has been determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Chapter 1750 of the RHMC sets forth procedures for amending the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing before the Planning Commission is necessary before a recommendation for a Zoning Code amendment can be made to the City Council. On January 19, 2016 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and accepted public testimony. Section 4. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony, and other evidence regarding the Project. This Resolution, and its findings, are based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its January 19, 2016 hearing, including, without limitation, the staff report submitted and finds that the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments comply with the requirements of the City of Rolling Hills General Plan, Rolling Hills Municipal Code and State Planning and Zoning Laws (Government section 65000 et seq.). Section 5. The Planning Commission does hereby find and declare as follows: A. On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed three bills into law — Assembly Bills 266 and 243, and Senate Bill 643 — collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act ("MMRSA"). The MMRSA became effective on January 1, 2016 and contains provisions that govern the cultivating, processing, transporting, testing, and distributing of medical marijuana to qualified patients. B. The MMRSA states that if a city or county has not adopted land use regulations by March I, 2016, to either regulate or ban cultivation of marijuana for medicinal Resolution No. 2016-01 1 purposes, the State will be the sole authority that issues cultivation licenses in that jurisdiction, meaning no local license will be required. C. Commercial medical marijuana activities, as well as cultivation for personal medical use as allowed by the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program, can adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents. Further, as recognized by the Attorney General's August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, marijuana cultivation or other concentration of marijuana in any location or premises without adequate security increases the risk that surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. D. The Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) does not currently expressly and separately prohibit the cultivation or delivery of marijuana within the City, Title 17 has historically been applied to prohibit or preclude these types of activities. In order to ensure full local control over regulation of commercial cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the City is preserved, the MMRSA requires the City to adopt an ordinance expressly regulating commercial cultivation by March 1, 2016 to ensure the State is not the sole regulator of cultivation activities. Additionally, the MMRSA also contains language that requires delivery services to be expressly prohibited by local ordinance, if the City wishes to do so. E. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan because the Project is in the public interest and there are community benefits resulting from the regulation of medical marijuana. F. The Zoning Ordinance text amendments promote the health, safety, and welfare of Rolling Hills' residents and serve the goals and purposes of RHMC Title 17 by ensuring compliance with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. G. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the environmental impacts of the action be assessed. The proposed amendment will not in itself result in any environmental impacts nor will the amendment result in any changes in the physical conditions that exist in the City. Staff has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines per § 15061 (b)(3). Section 6. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in attached Attachment A, which is incorporated by reference. Section 7. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Section 8. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis Resolution No. 2016-01 2 of the project is the Planning Commission's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. Section 9. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Section 10. This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 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. 2016-01 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 17.08.050 AND 17.16.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.29 IN ORDER TO IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, DELIVERY AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMNET NO. 2016-01. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 19th, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2016-01 4 ATTACHMENT A Amend Title 17 (ZONING) as follows: 1. Section 17.08.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Except as provided in this title, no building shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as specifically provided for and allowed by this title. Any use or structure not specifically permitted by this title shall be prohibited. B The cnultivatiun,_delivery and mobile dicoensing of marijs'anaar ighly obiestionable_nch the cultivation. deliK_ very and mobil�ispensing of mariivana_ateexxpr_essly prohibited in all zones of the City (per Section 17 16 020 Band_Chapter 17.29E Accor ' Ily the City shall not issue any RetmitTlicense or other entitlement for the cultivation. delivery and mobile disoenci marijuana 2. Section 17.16.020 B of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding subparagraph 3, 4, and 5 and shall read as follows: 17.16.020 - Permitted and prohibited uses. B. The following uses are prohibited in the RA -S zone: 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for occupancy of less than thirty days. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. 1 Cann is delivery. includine the use y. medicaLmatijuana_dispensatXstf_an_y technology platform owned and controlled by the_m.edicaLmarljnana dispensary_4m_intlependeflnseavilie Statesinder the Medical Marii.uana Regulati.onandSafety_Ae Lich enablespersons. qualified oatients,andLor primary_caregivers to arran°e for or facilitate the commercial tray er o meslicaLmari.inana or medical marijttana_Drusluel , defined_imChauter_3.5 of the Health and�afety Code, ac may be amended. 4. Commercialsannabicactivities ncludingnitivation. noss_ession. manufacture., possessive ct_orinp laboratoryt c�tinng,labeling transporting distribution.or sale of medicaLmarijuana or medicaLmariivanaproducts,exe_eptas set forthin Business_and Professions Code section 19319 relatedlo oualified toa ients and/_oLprimarkcaregivers. Resolution No. 2016-01 Cultivation of cannabis or medicaLmarijuuana. incluslingthe planting. growing. harvestinz drving. cu_r ng, grading or tdmmina of marijuana or cannabis_, defined in Chanter 3,5 of the Health and Safety Code. as may_he amended. 3. Title 17, Chapter 17.29, "Medical Marijuana Regulation" is hereby added to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Tile 17 Chapter 17.29 Medical Marijuana Regulation Sections: 17.29.010 Definitions 17.29.020 Prohibition 17.29.030 Public Nuisance Sec. 17.29.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Cannabis, or Marijuana, shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11018. Commercial Cannabis Activity means cultivation, possession, manufacture, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transporting, distribution, or sale of Medical Cannabis or a Medical Cannabis product, except as set forth in Business and Professions Code Section 19319, related to Qualifying Patients and Primary Caregivers. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of Cannabis. Delivery shall include the use by a Dispensary of any technology platform owned and controlled by the Dispensary, or independently licensed by the State under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, which enables Persons, Qualified Patients, and/or Primary Caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products. Dispensary means a facility where Medical Cannabis, Medical Cannabis products, or devices for the use of Medical Cannabis or Medical Cannabis products are offered, either individually or in any combination, for retail sale, including an establishment that Delivers Medical Cannabis and Medical Cannabis products as part of a retail sale. Medical Cannabis means a product containing Cannabis, including but not limited to, concentrates and extractions, intended to be sold by Medical Cannabis patients in California pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7. Resolution No. 2016-01 6 '$ Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act shall refer to Chapter 3.5 of the California Business and Professions Code, commencing with section 19300, et seq. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries means any Dispensary, clinic, cooperative, association, club, business or group which transports or Delivers, or arranges the transportation or Delivery, of Medical Cannabis to a Person. Person means any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, society, or other organization. The term Person shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, or salesperson. Primary Caregiver shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, as may be amended. Qualified Patient shall have the same definition as Health and Safety Code section 3362.7, as may be amended, and which means a Person who is entitled to the protections of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. For the purposes of this Article, Qualified Patient shall include a Person with an identification card, as that term is defined by Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. Sec. 17.29.020 Prohibition. A. Commercial Cannabis Activities of all types are expressly prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall establish, operate, conduct, or allow a Commercial Cannabis Activity anywhere within the City. B. Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No Person shall: 1. Locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or abide, abet or assist in the operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City; 2. Deliver Marijuana to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose; or 3. Deliver any Medical Cannabis product, including, but not limited to tinctures, baked goods, or other consumable products, to any location within the City from a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary, regardless of where the Mobile Marijuana Dispensary is located, or engage in any operation for this purpose. C. This section is meant to prohibit all activities for which a State license is required. Accordingly, the City shall not issue any permit, license or other entitlement for any activity for which a State license is required under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. D. Marijuana cultivation by any person or entity, including clinics, collectives, cooperatives and dispensaries, is prohibited in all zones within the City's jurisdictional limits. No permit, whether conditional or otherwise, shall be issued for the establishment of such activity. No Person, including a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, shall Cultivate any amount of Cannabis in the City, even for medicinal purposes, except where the City is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on such activity. Sec. 17.29.030 Public Nuisance. Resolution No. 2016-01 7 Any use or condition caused, or permitted to exist, in violation of any provision of this Article shall be, and hereby is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be summarily abated by the City pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731 or any other remedy available to the City. Resolution No. 2016-01 8 Planning Commission Meeting Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 Attachments to Agenda items: 6-A 7-D 8-A 8-B