Loading...
City Council Agenda 04-11-2016MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Dieringer at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Mirsch, Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dieringer. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Charles Ramdsell, 8 Williamsburg Lane. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 28, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 13. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. City Council Finance/Budgct/Audit Committee meeting notes of March 28, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. RESOLUTION NO. 1183 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented. CONSENT ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION: F. Consideration of a recommendation from the Traffic Commission to install "ALL WAY" plaques below the existing "STOP" signs at the intersection of Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Councilmember Pieper asked that Item 4D Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments be removed from the consent calendar for individual consideration. Hearing no objection, Mayor Dieringer so ordered. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining items on the consent calendar as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council add an ad hoc committee to address stormwater related issues and further appoint Mayor Pro Tem Black and himself to that committee. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper further moved that the City Council amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper on the Personnel Committee instead of Mayor Dieringer and Councilmember Mirsch. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion. Following lengthy discussion, Councilmember Pieper called the question. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion to call the question, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. Councilmember Pieper's motion to amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper on the Personnel Committee carried with Councilmember Mirsch and Mayor Dieringer opposed. Following further discussion, Mayor Dieringer moved that the City Council amend the proposed committee assignments to place Councilmember Mirsch on the Finance Committee instead of Councilmember Pieper. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve the remaining committee assignments as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOUSPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -AI -MS), (JANKOVICH). Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new residence and various other structures in Zoning Case No. 897 at 77 Crest Road East. She reviewed the history on this property stating that the lot is 10 acres is size as the result of two lots being combined previously and the applicant also received previous approval to construct a stable and corral on the combined lot. She further reviewed the applicant's request stating that the residence is proposed at 6,631 sq. ft. with two, two car garages for a total of 1,308 sq. ft. to be located on each side of the house. She stated that applicant also proposes a swimming pool and covered porches as well as a koi pond and gazebo. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance for a portion of the new residence and porch to encroach into the sideyard set back in a situation where the existing house currently also encroaches into the setback. She further reviewed the details of the applicant's request and stated that the development standards are within the Zoning Code requirements. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request including the variance given the impact on the grading if it were to be moved out of the setback. Mayor Dieringer questioned the need for the variance and suggested that the house could be expanded on the other side without getting into the slope. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black as to why the applicant is proposing a biofiltration system, Planning Director Schwartz stated it is a requirement of the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance that was adopted as a result of State requirements regarding storm water management. Brief discussion ensued concerning the encroachment. Following discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-05 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 77 Crest Road East. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING 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, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE AND TOTAL COVERAGE OF THE LOT AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 893 AT 66 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 107-EF), (THOMAS). Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a cabana, pool, above grade deck and various other structures in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive. She stated that the applicant is further requesting variances to locate some of the structures in the setback and reviewed the variances being requested. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request with a condition that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Councilmember Mirsch stated for the record that she was present at the site visit and at the first Planning Commission hearing on this matter. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the need expressed for the variances, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the justification was that the only other location where the structures could be located would be in the front which would also require a Variance and the Planning Commission felt that the proposed location was a better option. Mayor Dieringer expressed concern regarding the variances being requested and the as built structures. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (WARREN). AND RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN) Councilmember Pieper recused himself from consideration of these two items due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request stating that this request is two applications for one project at 11 Saddleback Road. She stated that the first application is for a lot merger to combine two adjacent lots into one lot resulting in a lot 3.25 acres gross and 2.2 acres net after the roadway easements are deducted. She stated that Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07 approves the request to merge the lots. Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07 granting approval of the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No. 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the second application is to construct a new residence, garage, pool, stable, dressage arena and various other structures on the merged lot. She reviewed the applicant's request stating that the Planning Commission approved the request with certain conditions as shown in the resolution. She further reviewed the grading and development standards stating that that a large portion of the disturbance is for the dressage arena. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-08 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 at II Saddleback Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Councilmember Pieper returned the dais. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 A PUBLIC HEARINGS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET PRIORTIIES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the budget priorities identified by staff for the FY 2016-2017 which include: finalize the Update to the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan (State -mandated); Refurbish Tennis Courts and Common Area for ADA Compliance; Various Zoning Code Modifications; Investigate Fully Funding CalPERS Retirement Liability; City Hall ADA Compliance Project; Civic Center LandscapingMardscape Replacement Repair; 2017 Election; Identify City and Regional Storm Water Retention and Cleanup Projects; Financial System Upgrade; Initiate the Development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Stage 2 of Shutter Installation at City Hall. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the FY 2016-2017 budget priorities as presented. Councilmember Pieper seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION FOR A PENINSULA CITIES AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION (ALPR) CAMERA PROJECT TO COMBAT CRIME IN THE REGION. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Enforcement Committee in an effort to combat crime in the area has recommended installing ALPR cameras throughout the region, including in Palos Verdes Estates; and has directed the City Managers to come up with the locations and a funding plan to be approved by each of the four City Councils. He stated that the recommendation is to install 45 cameras and provides funding formula to determine each city's proportionate share of the associated cost. He stated the there are proposed to be three cameras installed in Rolling Hills — one to capture vehicles coming in to the city through each of the three gates. He stated that this project was presented to the RHCA Board of Directors last week since the cameras will be installed at their gatehouses and it was approved in concept. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $44,319.01 for FY 15/16 and $1,108.08 per year for the next four years for participation in the Peninsula Cities Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) camera project to combat crime in the region. Mayor Pro Tem Black seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The City Manager was further directed to return with an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase and installation of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras with Vigilant Solutions in conjunction with the four Peninsula cities; and, to return with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the four Peninsula cities for the Peninsula Cities ALPR Camera Project. DISCUSSION REGARDING PURCHASING A FAUX SHERIFF SQUAD CAR TO SERVE AS A DETERRENT TO CRIME. (ORAL ONLY) Councilmember Pieper stated that he received a suggestion from a resident that the City purchase a faux sheriff squad car to serve as a deterrent to crime given that burglaries keep increasing. Councilmember Mirsch commented that she is not opposed to this concept, but it is her hope that once the Volunteers on Patrol program is up an running it would serve as a similar deterrent to crime and purchasing a faux squad car may not be necessary. Following brief discussion, the City Council decided to give the Volunteers on Patrol Program a chance to affect change before making another purchase. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PLACING A MEASURE ON THE MARCH 2017 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 BALLOT THAT WOULD AMEND MEASURE B. (ORAL ONLY) Councilmember Pieper suggested that the City Council have a discussion on a future City Council agenda to consider drafting a ballot measure to either repeal or amend Measure B so that residents have a more clear understanding of the City's view regulations. He stated that the goal is to have something reasonable and fair that balances both sides of the issue - trees and views. Following brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to agendize a discussion and public forum pertaining to drafting a ballot measure for the City Council meetings on April 25, 2016 and May 9, 2016. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDING AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN FOR CITY HALL AND CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX IN ORDER TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT WITH THE ACT. (ORAL ONLY) Mayor Dieringer stated that this item is regarding the American with Disabilities Act and making the City Center compliant. City Manager Cruz stated that this matter was identified as a priority for the FY 15/16 budget, but it hasn't yet been implemented. He stated that it was previously suggested that staff work with a resident who has knowledge in this area. He stated that the CJPIA also has resources for consultants that can help develop a transition plan. Following brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to contact Clint Patterson for assistance in developing a transition plan for ADA compliance. DISCUSSION CONCERNING DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR RESPONDING TO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTS. (ORAL ONLY) Mayor Dieringer stated that this item was originally brought up by Councilmember Mirsch and she concurs that it would be a good idea to have a process for responding to resident correspondence or suggestions. In response to Councilmember Wilson, City Manager Cruz reviewed the City's current process for responding to resident correspondence and stated that most correspondence/inquires are responded to. Following discussion, the City Manager was directed to either respond to correspondence or forward to the City Council for consideration as appropriate. MATTERS FROM STAFF CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO ASSIST EIGHT (8) WILLIAMSBURG LANE HOMEOWNERS M PAYING FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN DEPOSIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the background and history related to this potential undergrounding project stating that in 2015, the City Council allocated $29,500 toward this project. He stated that subsequent to that allocation, there was a meeting held with the property owners in the affected area and given limited interest in the project, the project was reduced in scope to only include the eight homes on the West side of the street and the utilities have submitted revised estimates for the engineering and design deposit requirement accordingly with the revised total being $19,335. Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Charles Ramdsell, 8 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council regarding the project stating that he and his wife have been supportive of the project since the beginning but he is concerned that there is not consensus amongst the rest of the neighbors. He stated that he believes that the utilities should pay the cost of undergrounding given the scope of the undergrounding project on Blackwater Canyon Road. Councilmember Pieper explained the Blackwater Canyon Road project and further explained why that project doesn't include any undergrounding on Williamsburg Lane. Following discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council appropriate 50% of the total cost of $19,335 to assist in paying for the engineering design cost associated with Williamsburg Lane undergrounding of overhead utilities project if RHCA does not contribute toward the project; or 33 1/3% if RHCA does contribute 33 1/3% to the project. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS (cont.) OTHER MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL Following discussion regarding the additional information that was requested by Mayor Dieringer regarding the Planning Commission cases on this agenda, the City Council directed staff to investigate placing and storing the Planning Commission agenda packets in Dropbox using Dropbox Pro for the City Council's reference. Mayor Dieringer expressed concern regarding the number of variances that are granted and stated that the City Council may need to review its policies with regard to development. Following discussion, the City Council directed staff to schedule ajoint meeting with Planning Commission/City Council. In response to Mayor Dieringer regarding the view case that is currently under appeal, City Attorney Jenkins stated that he does not believe the City Council is obligated to remand the case back to the Committee on Trees and Views but it may do so if it chooses when the hearing is before the City Council. He further stated that parties may request a remand if they so desire. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator City representative: Personnel Committee (Pieper and Dieringer) Unrepresented employees: Planning Director, City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Administrative Assistant, Associate Planner The City Council recessed into closed session at 9:43 p.m. to discuss the matter listed above. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Dieringer called the meeting back to order in open session at 10:50 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). City Attorney Jenkins reported that during the closed session, the City Council discussed the matter listed on the closed session agenda and there was no reportable action but direction was given. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:51 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, April 25, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectful submitted, 4466 Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, // 4A. %l Bea Dieringer Mayor CP it 247 -6e7/ - J Minutes City Council Meeting 04-11-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER Provided at the request of Mayor Dieringer on 4/11/2016 — 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 Chaimran Chelf. None. YolaNe 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 Inferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumicb, 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 Chairmen Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS 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, (Demme). 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 Dermee, 1 Lower Blardtwater 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 Planing 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 returned to the dais. $$SOLUTIONS 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. 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 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) pursuamt 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 covaage 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 Chainnan 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 Eastfield 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 coral 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 Jul Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Planting Director Schwartz stated that the applicant has requested that consideration of this matter be continued. Recognizing that the item is on the published agenda, f]tairman 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 piup 4y 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 am. 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(6x3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs 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 retain 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 arena 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 concern 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 11 Saddleback Road with the standard findings of fact Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 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 end retaining walls into the required front and side yard seibacics; 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-1 Overlay Zone. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and disclosed for the record that he bad a conversation with the applicant encouraging him to not encroach into the easements. He then asked for staff's 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 die 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 feather 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 feather 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 stratum. 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 Oray 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, be 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 Chairmen 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 retain 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 Am (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. R of whist 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 =ready 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 mnrently 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 staff's 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 staffs 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 Cbelf 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 staff's 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 AMENDMtN7' 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). @� 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 staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the Plarming 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 tat 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 I" otherwise, the State regulations which are much more permissive would apply. City Manager Cruz stated that both Mayor Pro Tem Dierioger and Counclmember Mirsch suggested that this matter be considered 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 tatter 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 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 sbe 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 recognirittg the time contains, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-01 recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Robing 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 adjourned regular meeting of the Pluming 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, r' (*EA 14."LIir; Heidi Luce City Clerk MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2016 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Smith, Kirkpatrick, Gray and Cardenas Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner FIELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 3 Eastfield Drive. 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 a 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 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 Caw 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, Cass 1 exemption Guidelines. Also present for this field trip were: Ben Cauthen, project designer Luigi Ciappa, representative Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and pointed out the proposed 704 square foot detached garage and its new configuration (with direct access from the driveway), the new one -car parking pad proposed to be located closer than 30 feet to the roadway easement line, the 61 square foot addition to the residence, and advised that the permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and disturbed area of the lot will be exceeded due in large part to the existing tennis court at the rear of the property. Director Schwartz also pointed out the existing 3' retaining wall that will be demolished, the area behind it graded out and a 5' high retaining wall constructed in the front setback, before all present proceeded to the rear of the residence to view the addition at the rear of the lot, and the proposed garage. Director Schwartz illustrated 1 where the proposed stable set -aside area is adjacent to the existing tennis court. Discussion ensued about the existing out of grade condition at the northeastern side of the garage. The project designer stated that the proposed garage will be constructed within the footprint of the existing garage and therefore this condition will remain. Director Schwartz stated that elevation plan for this condition must be submitted and if the out of grade height does not meet the code requirement a variance would be required. Commissioner Gray suggested that the applicant soften the appearance of the exposed side of the garage and construct terraced walls with planting in between The Commission then discussed the terraced walls and how best to blend them with the surrounding area and provide a minimum of 4' wide walking path around the structure. B. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with a 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 Jul Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Per the request of the project representatives the field trip was cancelled. 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) 2 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. Also present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson, engineer Matt Schneider, architect Gregg Keenan, contractor Carol Hoffman, resident Eddy Delgado, resident Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels into one parcel, resulting in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, and gave an overview of the 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. The field trip commenced at the driveway portion of the lot where Planning Director Schwartz stated that the existing detached garage is proposed to be converted to a portion of the stable with additional square footage added for the stable and discussion about the driveway access to the proposed stable ensued as the code requires that access to the stable not be all impervious. Planning Director Schwartz showed the 3 - foot wide decomposed granite or grasscrete inlay on the driveway the applicant propncas to satisfy the code requirement. In response, Chairman Chelf requested that the surfaces leading to the stable be pervious and Tavisha Nicholson advised that if that were what the Commission requires, the applicant would comply. Carol Hoffman commented that access to the dressage arena should be provided for very occasional heavy truck delivery of sand and other materials to maintain the arena. The engineer pointed out the secondary roadway access to the west of the primary driveway access that will serve to accommodate this function. In response to Director Schwartz's comment that a second driveway could require a Conditional Use permit, Chairman Chelf suggested that the access to the arena be taken off of the primary driveway Carol Hoffman also inquired about the proposed three-foot wall along the horse access trail from the stable to the dressage area, to be located between the trail and the pool area. Ms. Nicholson discussed how the wall goes upwards to the residential building pad and that there is adequate separation between the horse riders and the pool area. 3 Everyone proceeded to the proposed stable/corral area where discussion about the proposed 2:1 grading and the cut and benching grading ensued. All present viewed the silhouette of the proposed stable and discussed the existing corrals, which will be demolished. Ms. Nicholson advised the group that the intention is to retain the garage and residence as much as possible and to complete a "major remodel." However, for the purpose of planning review the project is being considered new construction. The group then walked the proposed trail to the proposed residence, pool and deck area where Planning Director Schwartz pointed out the new house, two trellises areas - one by the residence and the other overlooking the dressage arena, the pool and decking. A question was asked about how much grass area would remain and Ms. Nicholson advised there would be little grass area left after construction. Most surfaces would be a combination of decking/landscape. The group proceeded to the proposed dressage arena and Gregg Keenan indicated where the existing So Cal Edison easement is and Planning Director Schwartz advised that a condition of approval will be for So Cal Edison to sign off on that easement or provide written permission for the easement to remain with the dressage arena located over the easement. Discussion ensued regarding grading and limits of grading and whether the dressage arena could be moved further back on the lot so that it does not encroach into the front setback. Tavisha Nicholson indicated how that would be challenging, as the rear portion of the lot is very steep and would require more disturbance to accommodate a regulation size dressage arena, unless retaining walls are constructed. Chairman Chaff asked if the applicant would consider altering the proposed accessway of the dressage arena from the existing driveway via a gate and Ms. Nicholson agreed to explore the access further. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, 4 Date MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FEBRUARY 16, 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 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 in the City Council Gunther, 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. Natalie Karpelts, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Tony Infernal!, Architect Geoff Sumieh, Designer. Andy and Sarah Elkin 2 Hillside Lane. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 19, 2016. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. January 19, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted a typographical error in the minutes. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on — January 19, 2016 as corrected. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDTTION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010.03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 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 staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. She stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request and the Resolution is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-03 granting approval of the applicant's request to remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution No. 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Cardenas returned to the dais. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR. A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, FOR GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALLS THAT DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 - FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. She stated that during the site visit prior to the last meeting, it was noticed that there was an existing out of grade condition near the comer of the garage that will remain with the new garage which was not shown on the original plan nor was it advertised as requiring a variance. She further stated that at its last meeting following discussion regarding the out of grade condition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as revised to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the out of grade condition of the garage. She reviewed the revised plan, which shows only 5 R of exposed wall and included the required 4 h. walkway around the structure. She stated that the Resolution of Approval is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to express concern on behalf of the applicant regarding the fuel modification condition. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith expressed concern regarding the project stating that while she understands the constraints on the lot, she still feels the lot is overdeveloped and the location for the future stable and corral is not feasible. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-04 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Request for a Lot Line Adjustment of two lots at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ZONING CASE NO. 896. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH I and 48-RH-2), (Warren). 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, March 15, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS 114 ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. She stated that at its October meeting after visiting the site and discussing the project the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revise the project to move one of the additions out of the setback es much as possible to meet the line of the existing encroachment so that the well is not in the easement and to address the issue at the rear of the property where there were proposed three step down walls to the lower pad for the pool. She further stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request subject to the modifications to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She further reviewed the applicant's revised request and stated that the Resolution of Approval based on the revised application is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisba Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Hearing no feather public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirkpatrick and Commissioner Cardenas commented that they are appreciative to the applicant for making the suggested revisions and they are okay with the current proposal. Commissioner Cardenas further commented that he feels the project is consistent with the other development on the street. Vice Chairman Gray stated for the record that he listened to the audio recording from the previous meeting and visited the site again. He stated that he is not comfortable with the further encroachment into the front yard setback and he feels there is too much on the building site. Discussion ensued concerning the front yard encroachment and the constraints on that particular street Planning Director Schwartz provided again the aerial photograph showing the encroachment of the other properties on the street Vice Chairmen Gray expressed further concern regarding the number of variances requested Commissioner Smith stated that she is concerned about the lot coverage, disturbance and the development over the canyon. She further stated that she does not feel the project is harmonious in scale with the site. Following discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-02 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith and Vice Chairman Gray opposed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new residence and Variances in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang lui Yiu). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on. Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at approximately 8:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 10 Bowie Road. 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 decic, walls, swimming 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. Chaimran Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request as revised since the last meeting to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She stated that the applicant is also requesting to retain two existing sheds, which are located in the easement as well as a trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is not comfortable approving anything in an easement but given that the neighbors have not raised any issues, he would be inclined to approve it. He further stated that otherwise, he is satisfied with changes that the applicant made and feels as though the concerns raised have been addressed. Commissioner Smith commented that she appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and she feels that this is a very difficult lot. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he too appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and feels that the concerns have been mitigated. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is concerned with the project because of the number of variances being requested. He stated that he feels the concerns regarding the cabana have been addressed but he objects to the sheds in the easement. Discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Chairman Chelf commented that it was his understanding that the Rolling Hills Community Association approved the location of the sheds with a stipulation that the sheds be removed if the applicant were to move from this property. Further discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Following discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Cortnnission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive with the standard findings of fan and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The Planning Commission directed staff to confirm the Rolling Hills Community Association's action with regard to the sheds. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and Variances to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to retain a shed and service yard in side setback, fora wall that does not average out to 2.5' in height and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miler). 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 for an 1,835 sq. ft addition at 46 Eastfield Drive and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in they day. She stated that the applicant originally submitted plans to include a raised deck and has since removed that part of the request She further stated that the encroachment of the addition has been recalculated and it is approximately 80 sq. ft. She further reviewed the applicant's request and the conditions observed in the field. She stated that there will be no grading since the raised deck has been eliminated but the applicant will submit revised numbers. She further stated that the lot coverages on this project are all within the requirements, but the building pad coverage is proposed at 54.8%. She commented that at the field trip, concern was expressed about the height of the structure. Anthony Inferrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to address the ridge height issue as well as the other issues raised. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he does not feel the addition is in keeping with the rest of' the house. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that be is concerned about the massing but he feels that the arddtectmal features are outside the Planning Commission's purview. Commissioner Smith commented that it struck her as a lot of mass and she is concerned that it does not meet the intent of the General Plan to keep things open and rural. Commissioner Cardenas commuted that be is concerned about the excessive building pad coverage. Following discussion the applicant was asked to submit a revised plan to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the massing, the height and the ridgeline; es well as the other issues raised in the field. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plea 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 coral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patios into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -AI -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (3ankovich). 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 staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier today. She stated that the project consists of a new 6,631 sq. ft. residence with two garages, a swimming pool, and covered koi pond. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and setbacks stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the side yard setback with 325 sq. ft. of the residence and a portion of the covered patio. She noted that the existing home also encroaches into the side yard setback She further stated that the Planning Commission previously approved a stable in the front yard area and as part of this application, the applicant proposes to move a portion of the wall that was part of that project further to the East to provide more room around the stable. She stated that during the field trip, the neighbor's architect requested that the pool equipment be moved and the engineer for this project has submitted a revised plan to show the pool equipment being removed from the southern side and moved to the eastern side to address the neighbor's concerns. She further reviewed the drainage plan, which includes a biofiltration unit to collect and dissipate the water from the site based on the stormwater management requirements. She further reviewed the coverages and proposed grading as well as the proposed driveway and turnaround. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions that were made. Geoff Sumich addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion. Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 897. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading, retaining walls over 3 feet in height, swimming pool and miscellaneous structures; Conditional Use Permit for a pool house, and Variances to locate the pool and pool house in the front yard of the lot, and to exceed maximum disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane, (Lot 60-RH), Rolling Hills, CA (Ellin). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and stated that the applicant proposes an 800 sq. ft. addition to the tear of the residence; a 470 sq. ft. cabana; a 680 sq. ft. swimming pool and 72 sq. ft. spa with a trellis and decking and walls that flank the pool area. She stated that a variance is also being requested to locate the pool and other structures in the front yard area. She stated that there currently exists on the property a two- story stable where the second story is being used as livable area, which will have to be converted back to a stable per the requirements of the Stable Ordinance. She further reviewed the proposed grading, disturbance and structural coverage. She stated that an adjacent property owner has expressed concern regarding the widening of the driveway and staff will be working with the applicant's representative to confirm the location of the property line. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Andy Elkin, 2 Hillside Lane (property owner) addressed the Planning Commission to introduce himself and his wife Sarah and further explain their request. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop 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. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. 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, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 2 Hillside Lane 10 Bowie Road ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16.16 ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the status of the View Ordinance amendment, Measure B Interpretation, and the appeal of the CTV resolution, which are currently before the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 an. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 2 Hillside Lane and 10 Bowie Road- The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 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, igivitgath Heidi Luce City Clerk Minutes - Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 • MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner MELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 46 Eastfield Drive. 10 BOWIE ROAD, ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING. 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. Also present for this field trip was: Anthony Inferrera, Architect Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for Site Plan Review and Variance and pointed out the setback at the front, the western side setback, and the rear setback, and to the existing legal non -conforming shed in the side setback the applicant is proposing to retain. Mr. Inferrera advised that the applicant recently moved it so it is no longer in the easement but it still remains in the setback. Director Schwartz pointed out the graded pad in the rear of the property where the future stable and corral are proposed. The group then walked towards the front of the property where the 1,635 square foot addition is proposed with 80 square feet of it to encroach into the front yard setback. It was noted that the addition would not be visible from the street or any neighbor due to the steep nature of the lot and the landscaping that screens it. Director Schwartz pointed out the flat roof on the existing guest house and advised that a 1 Condition of Approval would be that the applicant ensure the roof on the previously constructed pool shelter/guest house has been reconfigured and approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee in conjunction with obtaining building permits for the proposed project. Mr. Inferrera advised that the proposed deck was not staked and is being removed from this proposal and Director Schwartz advised that the disturbance will remain as is existing if the deck is no longer proposed. Commissioner Gray inquired about the height of the addition and Director Schwartz answered it is higher than the existing roofline. The architect stated that the span is bigger. Discussion ensued about the height of the addition in the front and whether it needs to be so much higher than the existing house. Commissioner Gray stated that the way the project is staked it may not work when it goes to construction and the applicant may have to revise the ridgeline. The group then proceeded to the rear of the property where the 150 square foot addition is proposed, but was not silhouetted. Commissioner Smith inquired about the roofline as it was not staked and Director Schwartz advised it would likely require an 18 -inch eave. There was concern expressed about whether this addition will accommodate a 4 -foot walkway around the house. Commissioner Cardenas asked whether the utility shed attached to the house, which houses a tankless water heater, will be relocated and where. Director Schwartz advised that it should be shown on the plans. 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. Also present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson, Engineer Geoff Sumich, Designer Tom Jankovich, Property Owner Mary -Ann Jankovich, Property Owner Criss Gunderson, Architect and representative of 71 Crest Road East Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the request for Site Plan Review and Variance. Geoff Sumich presented a model of the proposed development for the Commission's review. Commissioner Smith had a question about the 3 large trees and the owners stated that they wish to retain them if possible. Criss Gunderson advised that while he is reporting back to his clients he does not 2 foresee any objections or issues. In response to Commissioner Smith, Director Schwartz stated that a resident below, and one from across the canyon in Rancho Palos Verdes reviewed the plans and voiced no objections or concerns. In response to Chairman Chelf, Director Schwartz stated that the proposed development is not in an easement, but that a portion of the house and porches are in the side setback. Commissioner Smith inquired if the proposed house could be shifted out of the setback. Tavisha Nicholson illustrated how the eastern side setback is very steep and stated that the applicants prefer not to grade on that slope. Commissioner Chelf inquired about the walls and Tavisha Nicholson advised they are less than 3 feet, up to 5 feet, averaging 2.5 feet. Criss Gunderson inquired if there will be fill for the pool and Tavisha confirmed there would be with some cut being exported. Director Schwartz pointed out where the biofiltration unit is proposed. Director Schwartz pointed out the limits of grading on eastern side of the building pad. Criss Gunderson requested that the applicant consider relocating the pool equipment enclosure to the eastern side of the property overlooking the canyon to avoid potential noise to his client below. The group reviewed the previously approved stable area and the proposed modification to the 3' high wall, which is planned to be moved slightly to the north to allow the owners for a larger open area around the stable. Director Schwartz stated that the existing house could not be demolished prior to constructing the stable and the property owners confirmed this would not be an issue as they plan to reside in the existing home for at least a year. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, 3 —111k11(2D Date MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to oideriby Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present Black, M rsch, Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz., City Manager. Shahiedab Gates, Assistant City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clalc Dan Trejo, Acting District Manager, California Water Service Company. Susan Cordone, Conservation Coordinator, Cal Water. Mike and Marcia Sohoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Tom lankovich; 24 Outrider Road (77 Crest Road East) Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridgc Lane North Sean Bennett, 2 Williamsburg Lane. Jeff MacLean, 9 Williamsburg Lane. Verna and Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road. David Brown, 4 Hackamorc Road Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive. Clint Patterson, 22 GeorgeffRoad. Lynne Ramsdell, 8 Williamsburg Lane. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 27, 2015. RECOMMENDATION:- Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented Councllmember Black moved ttiat the City- Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper reported that Item 9A pertaining to a recommendation from the Personnel Committee for appointments to the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission will not be discussed this evening and will be continued to the June 8, 2015 meeting of the City Council. Mayor Pieper stated that if there are no objections, Item 6C pertaining to California Water Service Company's proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be taken out of order. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. DISCUSSION CONCERNING COMMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY WANT TO PROVIDE THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDNG THE PROPOSED WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN — SCHEDULE NO. 14.1. Minutes City Council Meeting 05/11/15 Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that in response to the Governor's Executive Order mandating water usage reduction statewide, the State Water Resources Control Board set water usage reduction requirements for each community in California. California Water Service Company's (Cal Water) Palos Verdes District which provides water to Rolling Hills is required to achieve a 36% reduction in water usage beginning June 1. To meet this requirement, Cal Water submitted a Schedule 14.1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Plan) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) outlining its water budget enforcement measures and plans, including surcharges and penalties, to achieve the required reduction. He stated that CWS has prepared a draft water conservation ordinance and requested that cities adopt the Ordinance. He further stated that CWS has indicated the CPUC has expressed verbal support for the Plan but since the plan has not yet been approved by the CPUC, cities may submit comments in protest of the proposed provisions outlined in the Plan. He reviewed the provision set forth in the plan and the objections that were expressed by Councilmember Black. Mayor Pieper stated that the City is working to provide residents with useful information and resources concerning water conservation and personally, he is working with Cal Water to assess his water usage to determine what opportunities exist for water conservation at his home specifically. He noted that Councilmember Mirsch is working with residents and staff to assemble information about water conservation. He further commented that it is possible that resident's water bills could double in cost with the usage surcharges and penalties if the mandatory usage reductions are not achieved. Discussion ensued concerning the legality of such surcharges and monetary penalties with regard to Proposition 218 requirements that allow a City to only charge the cost that it takes to provide a specific service and the recent court of appeal opinion in the San Juan Capistrano case which challenged the tiered rate structure. Assistant City Attorney Coates commented that Prop 218 imposes a voter approval requirement for new taxes and fees imposed by local agencies but Cal Water is governed by the state through the Water Boards and PUC and they have taken the position that their proposed rates are legal and exempt from Prop 218 requirements. She further noted that the San Juan Capistrano case dealt with a different type of water purveyor where the City was the actual water provider as opposed to a private water supplier and it would require additional research to determine if that case is applicable here. Further discussion ensued concerning the reduction requirements and the process for appealing the water budget set for an individual property. Susan Cordone, Conservation Coordinator, Cal Water stated that the appeal process will be available on Cal Water's web site as of June 1, 2015 end there is a wealth of information available on the web site concerning water conservation Councilmember Mirsch suggested that Ms. Cordone visit the City to see what issues the City is facing and help determine specific strategies for water conservation in Rolling Hills. Following further discussion, Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to work with the City Attorney's office to determine the legality of a tiered raw structure at an expense not to exceed $5,000. Councilmember Black seconded the motion. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road suggested that the City wait to see if other cites take a similar action and follow along with them rather than spend money now. Following discussion, the motion carried without objection. Discussion ensued concerning the draft proposed ordinance. Mayor Pieper commented that the be does not feel the proposed ordinance is necessary because the provisions Cal Water outlined in its Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be effective with or without an ordinance. Following brief discussion, the City Council concurred not to move forward with adopting an ordinance. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare a letter to be sent to the CPUC, Cal Water and West Basin in opposition to the proposed water shortage contingency plan — Schedule 14.1 and tiered rate structure. Coumcilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mike Schoetle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council and asked Ms. Cordone specifically if Cal Water will take into account water use reductions that occurred prior to 2013 if a customer began reducing water usage before doing so was required. in response, Ms. Cordon suggested that Mr. Schoettle initiate the appeal process as soon as it is available. Minutes City Council Meeting 05/11/15 OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. Mayor Pieper stated that if there is not objection, the Old Business item pertaining to Proposition C and Measure R funds will be discussed later on the agenda. Hearing no objection, he called for Commission Items. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HULS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT 114 ZONING CASE N0. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (JANKOVICH). RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CJTY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request which includes two separate requests, the first for a Lot Line Adjustment at 77 Crest Road East and the lot adjacent to the North and the second request is to construct a stable on the merged lot She stated that the Lot Line Adjustment is to merge the two lots to create a 10.3 -acre lm at 77 Crest Road East and the Planning Commission voted on 4-0 vote to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the lot line adjustment. Planning Director Schwartz further reviewed the applicant's second request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,961 sq. ft. two-story stable which includes a request for Site Plan Review for grading and a Variance to locate the stable in the front yard area of the new lot. She stated that the proposed stable meets all of the requirements for a stable and further reviewed the applicant's request. She stated that the Planning Commission voted to approve the proposed stable on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Smith opposed because she felt the corral was too small for the size of the stable and the stable was too massive. Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer commented that she feels that if the lot merger is approved, it should be conditioned such that future subdivision cannot occur and expressed concern that the proposed stable is larger than the existing house on the property. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Tom Jankovich, 24 Outrider Road (applicant) addressed the City Council regarding the sire of the stable stating that they intend to use the stable for horses and they also intend to remodel or rebuild the existing house on the property to make it larger within the next six months. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council take this case under jurisdiction. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-06 authorizing a Lot Line Adjustment of the properties at 77 Crest Road East and the vacant lot North thereof and Resolution No. 2015-07 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 876 at 77 Crest Road East Councilmember Mirseb seconded the motion with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION 140. 2015-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDIITONS, AN ABOVE GRADE DECK AND TO LEGAJ.17? VARIOUS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRULTh1 STRUCUTRES; AND A VARIANCE WHERE PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS WOULD ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS AND A TREWS THAT WOULD ENCROACH INTO REAR SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 872 AT 23 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 2 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT- OZD-1, (HAMMOND). M'mma City Council Medina 05/11/15 Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for additions to an existing home and to legalize additions and a stable constructed by the prior owner. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz further reviewed the setbacks and proposed encroachments. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North addressed the City Council to further explain their request and offer to answer any questions. Following discussion, Councilmember Blanc moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-09 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 872 at 23 Middleridge Lane North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GARAGE ON A PROPERTY WITH A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AT 6 SADDLEBACK ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 877, (LOT 18-R}3), (REITER). Mayor Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to approve an addition to a previously approved garage at 6 Saddleback Road. She reviewed the history on the applicant's request stating that with the original request for modification, the Planning Commission approved the addition to the side of the garage but did not approve the 155 sq. ft. addition to the front of the garage and upon appeal to the City Council, the Planning Commission's decision was upheld on a deadlock by the City Council. Because construction did not progress on the project code enforcement ensued and through discussions with the applicant and the City Attorney it was defemrined that the applicant could go back before the Planning Commission to request to retain the 1 S5 sq. ft. She stated that upon further review, the current Planning Commission approved the applicant's request on a 3-1 vote With Commissioner Smith opposed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer called for comments from the City Council and public which there were none. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the only additional revision proposed by the applicant is to lower the roofline of the garage, but the Planning Commission determined that was not in their purview. L. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council stating that whether or not it was built without permission has nothing to do with the structure and offered to answer any questions the City Council may have on the project. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council take Zoning Case No. 877 at 6 Saddleback Road under jurisdiction. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection following brief discussion. NEW BUSINESS REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE WORK IN ZONING CASE NO. 830 — MR. WALTER CHANG, 6 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 140. 1176 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING AN EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 830 AT 6 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 22-RI4), (CHANG). Mayor Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the applicant is requesting a two-year time extension to Minutes City Council Meeting 05/11/15 -4- commence work in a project at 6 Saddleback Road. She stated that the applicant informed staff that they are very close to pulling paint and start construction but the would like additional time to do so. Following dicr„ssion, Cotmcilmember Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1176 granting approval of the applicant's' request fora two-year time extension to commence construction in Zoning Case No. 830 at 6 Portuguese Bend Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper returned to the dais. DISCUSSION ON FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR PENDING UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES PROJECTS. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the history of this matter and stated that there are currently three projects that have progressed to a point where residents are requesting the City to help fund engineering, design and construction costs. He further reviewed the three projects and the requested funding amounts which include: Eastfield Drive (33 properties) requesting $154,550 of which $10,000 was previously allocated by the City Council in November 2013. He noted that per SCE, Rule 20A funds cannot be used toward this project Williamsburg Lane (13 properties) requesting $34,252. He noted that a proposed SCE funded project to underground to the end of the street reduced the original amount of $74,252 by $40,000. Hackamore Road requesting $44,731 for engineering and construction costs to underground one pole on the Balch property. City Manager Cruz stated that there is currently $1,020,000 in the Utility Fund and the budget committee is recommending to add $250,000 as part of the FY 2015-16 budget. Assistant City Attomey Coatis reviewed the implications of the City Cotmcil's decision should it decide to proceed with allocating funds toward engineering costs associated with the proposed assessments districts for the Eastfield Drive and Williamsburg Lane projects noting that if the assessments districts are not ultimately formed, the upfront costs are lost. Mayor Pieper reviewed SCE's proposed infrastructure upgrades in the City planned in phases over the next several years. Recognizing that the City does not have enough funds to underground the entire city, he suggested using a fixed, fair amotun for each pole as the projects come forward. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that the City Council may want to just consider the projects before the City Council currently since fume costs are unlmown. In response to Councilmember Black regarding the legality of allocating funds to the Hackamore project, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that is not legal for the City to make a gift of public fund but it will need to be determined if the project will have benefit to other properties. Dicecasinn ensued concerning possible ways to determine a formula for allocating funds for utility umdergounding projects and the benefit and importance undergrotmding has comnunitywide. Cmncibnember Mirsch reported that she has had ex parte communication with resident Clint Patterson concerning undergro nding funding issue. She stated that she feels undergrounding is important to the City but where she differs is in her opinion as to how and when it should be funded She further stated that she does not agree with the concept of finding projects upfront that may not happen and she feels the City should not provide funding until the assessment districts are formed Mayor Pieper called for public comment Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that the project on Eastfield Drive cannot move forward until they know the cost and they cannot get the costs until the engineering study is done. Sean Bennett, 2 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council urging the City Council to allocate funding to these projects so they can move forward. Minutes (Sty Council Meeting 05/11/15 Jeff MacLean, 9 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council asking for clarification on the proposed SCE project Mayor Pieper provided an overview of the proposal. Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council urging the City Council support the Eastfield project. Verna Balch, 8 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council concerning the pole on her property stating that the pole affects all four properties on the street. She stated that the original estimate was 550,000 and she was going to pay the entire amount but the new estimate is almost 590,000 and since thc benefits reach farther than just her property, she would like the City's support. Burt Belch, 8 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council urging the City Council to allocate funding to the Hackamore project because it benefits more than just their property. David Brown, 4 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council urging the City Council support the Hackamore project. In response to Councilmember Black as to what other property owners are contributing to the Hackamore project, Mr. Brown stated that there are five houses on the street but there has been no formalized cost sharing arangement between the property owners. He commented that all five are in favor and three have indicated that they would contribute to the project. Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council stating that he does not feel the individual assessment districts will be successful and he feels that the only solution is to float a bond. Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road addressed the City Council to urge the City Council to take a leadership role in addressing undergrounding needs in the community. Lynne Ramsdell, 8 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council urging the City Council to support the Williamsburg project. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council to support Mr. Smith's comments. Discussion ensued concerning the funding requests and options for financially supporting the projects. Cotmcilmember Black suggested that staff contact SCE to confirm whether or not the SCE Rules 20A funds can be used for the Eastfield project. He further commented that be feels the City should support these three projects but it needs to be determined what is the appropriate level of support for each project. Following further discussion, Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council approve the funding allocations listed below for the pending undagmunding projects contingent upon staff providing answers to the following questions: Can SCE Rule 20A funds be applied to thc Eastfield Drive Project? Can funds from the Utility Fund be used for construction projects? Is funding a portion of the Hackamore project considered a gift of public funds? Funding Allocations: Eastfield Drive . 577,000 (including the 544,000 in Rule 20A funds if possible) Williamsburg Lane .. ' $17,000 Hackamore Road 59,000 (upon 75% completion) Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Staff was further directed m bring this item back to the City Council with answers to the questions above for final approval at the June 8, 2015 meeting. PUBLIC BEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. 342 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.16.020 AND APPENDIX A TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SHORT TERM RENTAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. Mayor Pieper' introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that upon direction from the City Council, the Planning Commission discussed the issue of prohibiting short-term rentals and after public hearing on the matter, unanimously adopted a resolution Minutes City Council Meeting 05/11/15 -6- recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance specifically prohibiting short-term rentals of less than 30 days and add short-term rentals as prohibited use in the table of uses. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer as to why the limit was set at 30 -day, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that in certain provisions of State law transiency is defined as occupancies of 30 days or less for purposes of Transient Occupancy Taxes. Brief discussion ensued concerning enforcement Mayor Pieper opened the public hearing and called for public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public bearing. Following brief discussion, Coancilmember Minch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 342. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The second reading was scheduled for Monday, Jtme 8, 2015. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE WILL BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2015 AT WHICH TIME THE FOLLOWING WILL BE AGENDIZED: CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ZONING CASE NO. f, FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND MODIFICATION TO BASEMENT ACCESS AND A VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT THE REAR SLOPES THAT WOULD BE STEEPER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SLOPES ("DEFERRED ITEMS") IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (TONSICH). THIN PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TTY CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to Time 8, 2015. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETINGATTENDANCE REPORTS REPORT FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMTTEE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. At the request of the Personnel Committee, consideration of this item was continued to June 8, 2015. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, City Manger Cruz reported that the SBCCOG is proposing a dues increase of 7% for the next fiscal year. Following discussion concerning what value the membership in SBCCOG provides the City, staff was directed to provide the City Council with information about the services SBCCOG provides to member cities. MATTERS FROM STAFF UPDATE ON SCE PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD CIRCUIT TIE-IN PROJECT (ORAL REPORT). Mayor Pieper provided a brief update on SCE's multi -phase Portuguese Bend Road circuit tie-in project and the proposed project to underground the utilities on Williamsburg Lane. City Manager Cruz provided further information on the project. He further stated that as a part of the project, the RHCA is proposing to pay for Verizon conduit portion of the project and sent a letter to the City asking the City to share in the cost of that portion of the project. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to agendize the RICA funding request for the City Council's consideration and confirm that the RICA will be obtaining assurance from SCE that'resideats will be protected and that the RCHA will have a process to keep residents informed. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1175 AND PROPOSITION C / MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR GIFTING OF PROPOSITION C AND MEASURE R FUNDS TO THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manger Cruz presented the staff report and stated that upon further review, Rolling Hills Estates determined that it is not feasible to use the existing poles es suggested by Councilmember Black at the previous meeting. Following discussion, M;mrtes City Cmmcll Muting 05/11/15 Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council allocate funds to add the left turn signal only. Counciimember Black seconded the motion which failed with Councilmembers Dieringer, Minch and Wilson opposed. Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1175 and approve the Assigrment Agreement for gifting of Proposition C and Measure R funds to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for intersection signal improvements at Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road to include the installation of a protected/permissive left turn signal for the east and westbound lane of Palos Verdes Drive North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Cou ncilmember Black opposed. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION AGENDA None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 12:06 am. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, June 8, 2015 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Minutes City Council Misting 05/11/15 -8- eerr ail Rata, qier41 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-A(1) & 5-A(2) Mtg. Date: 05/11/15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69- A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, QANKOVICH). AND RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. Concurrence by the City Council with Planning Commission decision of Resolution 2015-07 (construction of the stable) is subject to the City Council's concurrence with the Planning Commission decision in Resolution No. 2015-06 for the merger of the lots. ZC NO. 876. 2. The applicant, Mr. Tom Jankovich, requests a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) between two lots, a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a stable and corral. The proposed LLA would eliminate the existing lot line between 77 Crest Road East (Lot 1, Tract 27526) and the adjoining vacant lot (Lot 2, Tract 27526) thereby merging these two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into a single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.3 aces. Approval of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance is subject to approval of the lot line to merge the lots. The Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit requests are for construction of a stable with related grading and maximum 3 -foot retaining wall, and a Variance to allow the stable and corral to be located in the "front yard" of the joined lots. The 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 total proposed tack use area is 700 square feet, which is 19% of the entire structure. The proposed loft area would be 6.3% of the total structure. The stable would have a center isle and high ceiling, with a ridgeline of 18'5". The corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. 3. The Planning Commission at their April 21, 2015 meeting by a 4-0 vote adopted Resolution No. 2015-06, the lot merger and by a vote of 3-1 adopted Resolution 2015-07 for the construction of the stable (SPR, CUP & Variance). Commissioner Smith voted against the construction of the stable because she found the stable to be too massive and not in character with other stables in the City and that the corral is not adequately sized and configured in relationship to the size of the stable. The other members of the Commission found that the proposed stable and corral is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards (except for its location in front yard) and the stable advances the General Plan goals of maintaining an equestrian lifestyle in the City. They found that the area where the stable and corral are to be located are adequately sized and will be sufficiently separated from nearby lots and structures and is the most logical and feasible location for a stable and corral, due to the topography of the lot and the view from the lot. There were no comments from members of the public at the public hearings and there has been no objection expressed in writing or orally. Staff prepared two Resolutions; one for the lot merger and one for the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Resolution No. 2015-06 contains standard findings and facts for the lot line adjustment, which must be recorded separately from the Resolution approving the construction on the merged lot. Resolution No. 2015-07, contains standard findings and facts and conditions including conditions specific to this project as follows: • That the SPR, CUP and Variance approvals shall not be effective until the lot merger is recorded ZC 876 • That the construction of the stable comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for stables and any modifications to the tack room or loft area be subject to Planning Commission review • That the stable be screened from the adjacent homes and that landscaping plan be submitted to staff; any new planting shall not grow higher than the ridgeline of the stable • That if during construction the common driveway is damaged, the applicant make the necessary repairs • That during construction the common driveway is not blocked by construction or personal vehicles. BACKGROUND AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 4. This proposal is subject to the stable ordinance, adopted in 2011 which requires that all new stables over 200 square feet and corrals over 550 square feet be reviewed under the Conditional Use Permit process. The stable is proposed in the northwest corner of the merged parcel. A Site Plan Review is required due to the new stable structure, and related grading and retaining wall construction. A Variance is required because the stable is proposed within the lot's "front yard" which is the area between the front of the house and the front property line. No portion of the stable will encroach into a building setback 5. The lots are located in the RAS-2 zone and take access via a long shared driveway with other properties, off of Crest Road Fast 6. The property at 77 Crest Road E. currently contains 6.6 acres and the vacant lot is 3.7 acres. After the merger the lot will be 10.35 acres or 450,811 gross square feet, with a net area of 418,524 square feet. Currently, the developed lot is developed with a 3,275 square foot residence, 591 square foot garage and 91 square foot service yard. No changes are being proposed to the residence and garage at this time. 7. Pursuant to the Zoning Code requirements stables over 200 sq. ft. and corrals over 550 sq. ft require a Conditional Use Permit and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed stable will be located in the northwest corner of the property, just outside the front and (west) side setback areas, approximately 170 feet from the existing home on the same property to the south and is estimated to be, respectively, approximately 90 and 155 feet from the neighboring homes to the north and northwest. The subject property has driveway access to Crest Road E. through at least two properties to the north. Access for the proposed stable will be via a new 17 -foot wide driveway that will join the existing driveway on the subject site. The proposed stable would have a footprint of 3,456 square feet, in a rectangular structure, 48 feet wide by 72 feet long. The ground floor containing 3,456 square feet has a center aisle flanked by five animal stalls, a tractor storage area, a feed area, a 570 square foot tack room / workshop and 130 square foot bathroom. The upper loft area, 235 square ZC 876 feet in area, runs along a portion of the width of the building and will be used for additional agricultural storage. 8. Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request: REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface 17 'wide access -way joining existing driveway with roughened surface (not paved) Stable, corral not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Grading with 3' retaining wall; 1,370 cubic yards (685 cyd. cut; 685 cyd. fill) Not in front yard or side or front setback. May be located up to 25' in rear setback. Variance required for location in front yard Stable min. 35' from any residential structure Approx. 90 -ft. from closest neighbor's home Stable building to be designed for rural and agricultural uses only, but may indude storage for vehicles, household items Storage is proposed for a tractor. Stable to have center aisle open to the loft above. PC may require pervious surfaces. Size to include the entire footprint including loft, if any Ground floor (3,456 sf.): 825 sf. stalls; 315 sf. feed room; 165 sf. tractor storage; 1,450 sf. general agric. storage; 570 sf. tack room /workshop; 130 sf bathroom. Loft (235 sf.) - agricultural storage. Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for agricultural uses Agricultural spaces, including storage & feed, incl. loft comprise 2,991 sf. or 81.0% Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be maintained for a tack room use Tack use area comprises 700 sf. or 19.0% Includes tack room/workshop & bathroom Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen amenities Bathroom proposed; no kitchen Tack area may have glazed openings Windows proposed in tack area, (condition of approval) Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide & 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door Entry doors must comply; condition of approval Loft is permitted Loft; proposed for storage only Loft plate height may not exceed 7 The total height of the structure at its highest peak is proposed to be 18'4 s/a " (Plate heights per condition of approval.) Exterior area of stables may not to be paved Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval) Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous to stable. (Planning Commission may determine the size of a corral) Proposed 550 sq. ft. fenced corral. Access slope not to exceed 25% Existing access at 13% maximum slope Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses or sleeping in the stable ZC 876 The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structure, lighting, roof material, Fire Department requirements and others. 9. Grading in the amount of 1,370 cubic yards total (685 cy. cut and 685 cy. fill) is proposed which calls for one maximum 3 -foot tall retaining wall. The proposed 0.5"-4' high retaining wall along the north and west side of the stable building pad will average 2.5 feet in height and will not be located in any setback. A 2 -foot wide concrete drainage swale is proposed to divert water and will either terminate in a dissipater or tie in to an existing buried drainage system. 10. The disturbed area of the lot will be increased by 10,750 square feet (2.57%) or 11.8% total, (49,461 sq.ft. area), which will be well in compliance with the code limit of 40%. 11. There is only one building pad on the property, which accommodates the existing home and proposed stable. The residential building pad (not in setbacks) is 34,815 square feet. The building coverage will increase to 21.3% including the stable. 12. The net lot area of the lot with the merger, for development purposes will be 418,524 square feet. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 7,413 sf. or 1.8% of the net lot area, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas is proposed to be 22,128 square feet, or 5.3%, (35% permitted). 13. The proposed height of the stable will be 18'4 3A ". The stable will have a center isle and will be open to the roofline, except for the 235 sq.ft. loft area on the second level. The stable roof at the ridge point will be approximately 24 feet below the pad elevation of the closest residence to the north and approximately 13 feet above the pad elevation of the next closest residence to the northwest. 14. The following table lists stables /square footages approved since 2011. Location Square Feet / No. Of Stories 11 Blacicwater 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 (2,088 sq.ft. total) 10 Crest Rd. W. 735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft (1,188 sq.ft. total) 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 (840 sq.ft. total) 29 Middleridge Rd. S. 2,160 sq. ft. fast floor /800 sf. loft with center aisle (2,960 sq.ft. total) 6 Portuguese Bend Rd. 450 sq. ft. one story ZC 876 CONCLUSION 15. When reviewing a stable development application the Planning Commission considers 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 requirements adopted in 2011. 16. In reviewing a CUP the Planning Commission must fmd that the use is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 17. The applicant is required to meet all of the conditions of the permitted uses/construction specified in the Zoning Ordinance for stables and corrals and maintain the structure as approved for agricultural uses. 18. Other required approvals include the RHCA (Architectural Committee), and ultimately Building and Safety plan checking for building permits. At this time, the applicant has not reviewed the project with the RHCA, other than permission for a three rail fence and planting along the northern and western property lines. 19. In response for justification for a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the front yard, the applicant's agent states that the existing home is located at the rear of the property and the remainder of the 10 acres other than the existing building pad consists of a canyon with slopes at 2:1 or steeper. A great deal of grading and significantly larger disturbed area would be required to create a pad that could support a stable that would not be within the "front yard". 20. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, Sec.15303). ZC 876 Zoning Case No. 876 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEW STABLE AND CORRAL Front: 50 ft. from front property line Side: 35 ft. from side property line Rear: 25 ft. from rear property line (stables only) STRUCTURES Residence Garage Service yard Stable 3,275 sq. ft. 591 sq. ft. 91 sq. ft. 0 Residence Garage Service yard Stable 3,275 sq. ft. 591 sq. ft. 91 sq. ft. 3,456 sq. ft. (not including loft) (Site Plan Review required if size of structure enlarged by min. 1,000 sf. and this increases size of the structure by > 25% In a 36 -month period; for grading and for new structure). TOTAL 3,957 sq. ft. TOTAL 7,413 ft. $TRUCTURALCOVERAGE .88 % 1.8% of 418,524 sf. net lot area TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 4.34% 5.3% of 418,524 sf. net lot area (35% maximum) FtESIDENTIAUSTABLE 12.69% of 31,175 sq. ft. building pad not in setback 21.3% of 34,815 sq. ft. building pad not in setback BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) GRADING 1,370 cubic yards (685 cy cut / 685 cy 811) 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 sit .ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 9.25% 11.8% (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 CUP requested 3,691 sf. stable/550 sf. corral & 550 SQ. FT. CORRAL STABLE ACCESS N/A New connecting to existing residential driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing from Crest Rd. E. via easements VIEWS N/A Planning Commission condition PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission condition ZC 876 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 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 876 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; 1E42.050 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 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 uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance 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 876 o RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-0Z (JANKOVICH). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Tom Jankovich with respect to real property located at 77 Crest Road East, (APN: 7567-008-012) and the vacant property north thereof (APN: 7567-008-013) requesting to merge the two lots into one lot, which will result in a 10.3 acres gross lot, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof. Concurrently Mr. Jankovich filed an application in Zoning Case No. 876 for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a stable that would be located in the front yard area of the resulting lot. Section 2. California Government Code Subsection 66412(d) authorizes lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: (A) The lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; (B) A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; (C) The lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and (D) The lot line adjustment is approved by the City. The City may impose conditions on the Lot Line Adjustment in order to make the lot conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment or to facilitate the relocation of existing infrastructure or easements. Section 3. The lots are located in the RAS-2 zoning district. The existing parcels are non -conforming due to their access from Crest Road East where they share a common driveway with several other properties. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application to merge the lots on February 17, 2015, March 17, 2015 and at a field trip on March 17, 2015. No one testified for or against the project Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 exemption provided by Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 1® Section 6. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. Section 16.16.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(A) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in any subdivision in the RA -S-2 Zone shall have a net area of not less than eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty square feet, (2.0 acres). The proposed lot line adjustment will result in one parcel having 9.55 acres net lot area, (416,381 square feet). Both lots are currently greater than the required two -acre net The net lot area is measured by taking the entire lot area and deducting (a) the entire area within a recorded roadway easement plus the area within ten feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement (b) the ten foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to the property lines; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or parcel of land and (d) the access strip portion of a flag lot. B. Section 16.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(B)(3) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance require that in all cases where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. This provision is inapplicable to these properties as neither property fronts a street and they gain access through a common driveway over several other properties. The Planning Commission finds that the existing condition of the flag configuration will remain and therefore not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Section 16.20.230 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance requires that easements, the width of which are to be determined by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), be dedicated for bridle trail and utility purposes over the strips and portions of land within and abutting upon the property lines and will be recorded concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment. D. Chapter 16.48 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance provides procedures for processing of certificates of compliance, which is a document that acknowledges that subject parcels are considered by the City to be legal lots of record. City records indicate that both parcels were created legally. E. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review or any other Ordinance or Code to any future development of the lot, including but not be limited to further study of soils, geology, hydrology, grading and other requirements. Section 7. In accordance with the foregoing findings, a Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment Zoning Case No 876 as indicated on the map stamp dated March 17, 2015, and on file in the Planning Department is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 A. The Lot Line Adjustment approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. There shall be easements along the adjusted lot line, as required by the Rolling Hills Community Association. The maps and legal descriptions showing the new property easement lines shall be recorded. C. The lot line adjustment approval shall not in any way constitute any representation that the adjusted lot can be developed even if in compliance with current zoning and building ordinance standards. No development shall occur on the property without first complying with all applicable City Building and Zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations. D. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to the lot at such time as an application is made for development. E. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall not be issued until a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment, and including the required easements and trails, if any, as specified in Paragraph C of Section 6 are submitted to, and approved by the City. Upon the City's approval of the legal descriptions of the new adjusted lines a Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by the City, shall be recorded by the property owner in the offices of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and evidence of the recordation shall be returned to the City. F. The applicant shall record the deed of the property effectuating the transfer concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment and shall submit proof of such recordation to the City of Rolling Hills. G. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Resolution or the Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effective. HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK OPTED ON THE 21st DAY OF APRIL 2015. • Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015- 02, (JANKOVICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices CITY CLERK Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Tom Jankovich with respect to real property located at 77 Crest Road East requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and corral, with related grading and maximum 3 -foot retaining wall, and a Variance to allow the stable and corral to be located in the "front yard" on a property developed with a single family residence, at 77 Crest Road East, (APNs 7567-008-012 and 7567-008-013). The 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 total proposed tack use area is 700 square feet The stable would have a center isle and high ceiling, with a ridgeline of 18'5" high. The corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. Concurrently with this application, the applicant applied for a lot line adjustment. The proposed LLA would eliminate 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) thereby merging these two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into a single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.3 acres. Approval of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance is subject to approval of the Lot Line Adjustment No. 2015-02. Section 2 This proposal is subject to Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to construction of stables. A Site Plan Review is required for the new structure and grading for the stable and a Variance is required due to the proposed location of the stable and corral, in the front yard area of the lot, (not front setback). Section 3. The property at 77 Crest Road East is currently developed with a single family residence. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the subject application on February 17, 2015, March 17, 2015 and at a field trip on March 17, 2015. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and applicant's representative were in attendance at the hearings. ✓eltion 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a categorical exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval subject to certain criteria, prior to performing any amount of grading that requires a grading permit or before any new building or structure is constructed. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new stable and corral, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact A. The approval herein of a Site Plan Review is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and goals and policies of the General Plan because the proposed stable and corral is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards (with approval of a Variance) and the stable advances the General Plan goals of maintaining an equestrian lifestyle in the City in concert with low profile, low -density residential development. The areas where the stable and corral are to be located are adequately sized and will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters both on and off the project site. B. The subject lot is 10.3 acres in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed structure and corral while maintaining considerable amount of open space. The project proposes total lot coverage of 5.3%, which conforms to the Zoning Code lot coverage limit of 35% (of net lot area). The proposed project will be screened from the road and neighbors so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable, in complying with design requirements, will blend with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. D. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed stable/corral orientation are away from neighbors and its general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Landscaping will be provided, including existing mature trees that will be retained to screen the project from view of adjacent residences including on the east side and new landscaping will be introduces to further screen the proposed structures. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 The project utilizes the relatively flat area near the front of the lot to the extent practical for the proposed corral and stable, minimizing the need for grading. Grading for the stable pad would be 1,370 cubic yards cut and fill to preserve to the degree feasible, the natural terrain of the property. B. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable, the contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The graded areas will be landscaped. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be utilized. Section 7. Section 17.18 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable over 200 square feet and a corral over 550 square feet, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of the stable would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards for a stable, and the area is located in an area on the property that is adequately sized to accommodate the stable and adjoining corral. The proposed structure is appropriately located in that it will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters both on and off the project site. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed stable and corral orientation is not towards neighbors and its general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Additional trees will be added to further screen the project from adjacent properties. The proposed stable is to be located on an already graded area, therefore preserving the natural terrain of the remaining of the property. The proposed location is the most practical due to the location of the residence in the rear of the lot and the remaining topography on the lot make it difficult to place the stable and corral elsewhere on the lot without great amount of grading. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. The lot is 9.55 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 3 @ the proposed structure. The stable will be screened from neighbors view by trees that will be retained and additional trees will be planted. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code peraut approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement that front yard area of a lot be free of structures and wishes to construct a stable and corral that would be located in front of the leading edge of the residence, thus, in the front yard area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone in that existing residence occupies the rear portion of the lot, making it impossible, due to insufficient space in the rear, to locate the proposed stable such that it would conform to setbacks, yards and required separation of the stable from the residence. In addition, the terrain in the remaining portion of the lot, presents constraints due to sloped conditions, and would still require a Variance due to the exceptionally large "front yard" based on the location of the residence at the rear of the lot. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing grade, irregular lot configuration it would be a hardship to locate the stable in the rear. The expansive open space in the front yard comfortably supports a stable. The limited buildable area on the property due to steep slopes in the rear and sides places a hardship on locating the stable in the side or rear areas. The proposed stable is to be located on an already partially graded area, therefore preserving the natural terrain of the remaining of the property. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 4 which the property is located because a stable would not affect any neighbor's views and therefore property value and would be screened from them. The lot is located substantial distance and at a lower elevation than the road and is not visible from the road. Development of the stable in the front yard setback will allow substantial portion of the rear of the lot to remain undeveloped. E. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction of equestrian facilities. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning nisi No. 876 a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit for a stable and corral and a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot subject to the following conditions: A. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080, 17.38.080 and 17.42.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. This approval is subject to the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment application approved in Zoning Case No. 876, Lot Line Adjustment No. 2015-02 merging the two lots into one lot. No construction shall take place until proof of recorded merger of the lots has been submitted to the City. C. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. D. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including but not be limited to lighting, roofing, undergrounding of all of the utility lines, drainage, grading and others, unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plans on file dated March 16, 2015 and for the size of the corral a plan Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 dated March 17, 2015 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan, Variance and CUP approvals, herein as applicable, shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and complied with prior to issuance of a building permit from the building department. F. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed on all plans and be available at the construction site at all times. G. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. H. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 7,413 square feet or 1.8% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed including structures and flatwork shall not exceed 22,128 square feet or 5.3%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). I. Grading for this project shall not exceed 1,370 cubic yards and be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 11.9% of the net lot area. J. The stable uses are subject to the requirements of Section 17.18 of the RH Zoning Ordinance. The maximum height of the highest ridgeline of the stable shall not exceed 18'5". The surface of the corral, paddocks and turnout for the horses, if any, must remain pervious at all times. The access to the stable may not be entirely paved and may have a D.G. surface and may not exceed a slope of 25%. K. Any future modification to the stable, including interior modifications which would increase the size of the loft on the upper level, tack room, vehicle storage area and other non-agricultural areas, or any changes to the uses within the stable shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission pursuant to CUP requirements for stables. Reso. 2075-07 ZC No. 876 L. All utility lines to the stable shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. M. A drainage plan shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements for hillside development, and City's Low Impact Development Ordinance. N. If due to the construction the common driveway is damaged, it shall be the applicant's responsibility to make repairs to the driveway. O. Prior to issuance of building permits, two copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall include native drought -resistant vegetation. The existing trees and vegetation along the eastern portion of the lot shall remain and additional vegetation shall be planted to screen the stable from the residences above and to the west The landscaping plan shall utiliz- to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The trees, when planted, shall be of substantial size and height so that the stable is sufficiently screened from the homes above. Plants and trees shall not grow higher than the ridgeline of the stable. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced for the stable • and corral area, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the ; City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. P. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Q. 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permit prior to start of work. R. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. At no time shall construction or personal vehicles block the common driveway. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 T. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management. U. Approval from Rolling Hills Cmommunity Assocation shall be required. V. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED • • ADO1 i hi.) THIS 21th DAY OF APRIL 2105. B'i D 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. Reso. 201507 ZC No. 876 0U STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, QANKOVICH). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf. NOES: Vice Chairperson Smith. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices 44) kico HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MARCH 17, 2015 CALL MEETBsIG TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to, older by Chairman Chelf at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomie. JtOLL CALL Commissioners Present Gray, Kirkpatrick, Minch, Smith and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent: None. Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond IL Cruz,City Manager. Sbahiedah Coates, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Allen McGregor, Landscape Architect. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleaidge Lane North. Teary Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road. Greg George, Architect APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. pUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTE$ February 17, 2015 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning.Commisaion approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on February 17, 2015 as presented. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. February 17, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on.Febmary 17, 2015 as corrected. Vice Chairperson Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. APPOINT A MEMBER OF R p ANNING COMMI ION TO COMMIT TEE Aril TR AND VIEWS Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission appoint Chairman Chelf to serve on the Committee on Trees & Views. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which -carried without objection. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION 740. 2015-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDFITONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING CABANA TO A GUEST HOUSE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 5 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 875 (LOT 82-Rlf) IN ROLLING HILLS, CA, (RUZIC). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request and stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Comunission asked staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval to covert a previously approved cabana to a guesthouse and enclosure of an open porch that encroaches into the setback by 3 R. Chairman Chelf asked for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-03 recommending approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 875 at 5 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04. ZONING CASE NO. 870. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN PROPERTIES AT 1 BUCKBOARD LANE, 1 GEORGEFF ROAD, 3 GEORGEFF ROAD AND 8 CREST ROAD EAST AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONTAGE OF A LOT ALONG THE STREET EASEMENT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 870, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-01 (ROBINSON). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA). Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch recused themselves from consideration of this case due to the proximity of their properties to the subject property. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment stating that in order to keep the Zoning Map and General Plan in conformance with new property lines, a Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan amendment are also required. She stated that before the Planning Commission are two Resolutions of Approval. Resolution 2015.04 grants approval of the applicant's request for the lot line adjustment between four parcels as requested by the Planning Commission; and Resolution 2015-05 which recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and General Plan. Chairman Chelf called for public comments. Hearing none, be asked for comments from the Plamming Commission. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015.04 recommending issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment between properties located at 1 Buckboard Lane, 1 Georgeff Road, 3 Georgeff Road and 8 Crest Road East in Zoning Case No. 870. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05. ZONING CASE NO. 871. — RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAP (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2015-01) AND A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMNET NO. 2015-01) IN ZONING CASE NO. 871 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PORTIONS OF ADJUSTED LOTS HAVING APN NO. 7567-015- 021 AND 7567-015-022 APPROVED IN ZONING CASE NO. 870 BY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-01. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch recused themselves from consideration of this case due to the proximity of their properties to the subject property. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-05 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Map and a Resolution amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan in Zoning Case No. 871. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch returned to the dais. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 RRWF.F RECESS The Planning Commission took a brief recess to congratulate Commissioner Mirsch on her election to the Rolling Hills City Council and to thank her for her service on the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE — ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, a request to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.05 acres gross into 2 parcels of a vacant lot located on the south side of Crest Road East, between 17 Crest Road E. and 29 Crest Road E. (Lot 32 -A -MS), Parcel No.: 7567-011-020. At the request of the applicant, consideration of this case was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 876. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to merge two existing parcels into one lot; to construct a stable with a loft and corral, and to locate the stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot, at 77 Crest Road East, (APN 7567-008-12 and 13), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day to see the proposed stable and adjusted lot lines; and questions were raised regarding the size of the corral. She further stated that since the field trip, the applicant submitted a plan showing a 1,000 sq. ft corral versus the 550 sq. f . corral that was originally proposed and staff prepared a table showing the sizes of recently approved stables and corrals. She further reviewed the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment to merge two existing lots and construct a 3,456 sq. R footprint stable in the front yard area with a 235 sq. ft. loft She further reviewed the applicant's request for walls and the limits of grading which will be balanced on site. She stated that the stable meets the requirements for construction and allowed use. She feather stated that the development standards are also being met Chairman Chelf asked for clarification on the size of the corral recognizing that the revised ohm he was provided shows a 2,000 sq. ft. stable. Planning Director Schwartz confirmed that the proposed corral is 2,000 sq. ft. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant confirming that the proposed corral is 2,000 sq. ft. and offering to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Smith expressed concern that the size of the corral still isn't large enough compared to the size of the stable if it is to be a working stable. Commissioner Gray commented that since car storage is an acceptable use for a stable, the size of the coral is adequate and no neighbors have complained, he is not opposed to the project Further discussion ensued concerning the size of the corral and Vice Chairperson Smith suggested that the Planning Commission further study the appropriate size of corral based on the size of the stable and revise the code if necessary. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is not opposed to the project given that it meets the parameters set forth in the code. Chairman Chelf commented that he appreciates that the applicant increased the sirs of the corral.. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 876 at 77 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried with Vice Chairperson Smith opposed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 ZONING CASE NO. 872. Request for a Site Plan Review for a 1,389 square foot residential addition and a Variance to encroach with a portion of the addition into the side and front yard setbacks, including with a basement and with a trellis into the rear setback at 23 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot 2 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Hammond). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that the applicant completed a survey of the property and the structures have been superimposed on the survey: She. further reviewed the applicant's request for an addition including a basement and trellis in the City's overlay zone. She stated that the applicant is also proposing a 735 sq. ft. swimming pool with a new deck. Shc further stated that the applicant has submitted a cross section and their representative will review it. Allan MacGregor, Landscape Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to explain the cross section and the proposed pool. He stated that there isn't any grading required and retaining wall will not be required. Chairman Omit called for public comment. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North addressed the Planning Commission to further explain their request. Commissioner Cray commented that his only concern was how the pool was going to be retained and the applicant has addnssed that issue. Vice Chairperson Smith stated that she feels that the applicant has done a good job bringing the lot into compliance. Commissioner Kidgratrick commented that he feels that the infinity edge pool helps. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 872 at 23 Middleridge Lane North with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that that be no further development without Planning Commission review. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO. 877. Request for a Site Plan Review to retain a partially constructed garage addition, which was previously disallowed at an existing single-family residence at 6 Saddleback Road (Lot 18-RH), Rolling Hills, CA, (Reiter). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to a previously approved garage where an addition was constructed to the side and front of the garage and the applicant subsequently requested approval. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the addition to the side, but did not, at that time approve the addition to the front She sated that since the previous approval, code enforcement ensued on the case and the applicant requested another opportunity to come before the Planning Commission for approval of the 155 sq. ft addition to the font of the garage. She further stated that the applicant has since made changes to the roofti ne and at the field trip the Planning Conunission expressed concern that the proposed roofli ne may not be feasible, but that is something the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that the Planning Commission should consider only what is under its purview and he is okay with the 5 ft addition given that it meets the Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Gray suggested that the applicant have the proposed roofline approved by the Architectural Committee and then the Planning Commission can consider the addition. Chairman Chelf stated that he Planning Commission cannot predicate its decisions on what is approved by the Architectural Committee. The project should be reviewed on its merits and either approved or denied. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Mating 03-17-15 Vice Chairperson Smith stated that she is not pleased with the way this project has progressed but she understands the points raised. Commissioner Gray suggested putting a time limit by which the applicant must complete construction. Discussion ensued concerning a time limit. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road commented that he would also have to get County approval and that may take several months. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 977 at 6 Saddleback Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus conditions that then be no further development without Planning Commission review and that the project be constructed within 12 months. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 873 and 874. Request for a Zoning Code Amendment to emend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 17.18.070 to allow aviaries exceeding 200 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit on lots that are less than 5 acres in size; and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 338 square foot aviary on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size at 20 Outrider Road (Lot 170 -) Rolling Fails, (Rich). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 338 sq. ft. aviary with a full roof and metal mesh on the sides on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size. She stated that the Zoning Code allows aviaries of up to 200 sq. R on lots that are smaller than 5 acres without a Conditional Use Permit as long as they meet the development standards. She further stated that since the applicant is requesting a 338 sq. ft. aviary on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size, a Zoning Code amendment is required in addition to a Conditional Use permit She stated that the property is developed with a single-family residence and a swimming pool; and there is a set aside area for a stable and corral. She stated that if constructed, the aviary will not cause any exceedances on the lot Structural lot coverage is proposed at 7.4%, total lot coverage is proposed at 14% and building pad coverage is proposed at 36.5% and no grading is proposed She stated that the applicant is planning to keep parakeets, finches and similar birds in the aviary. She stated that owners of two neighboring properties visited City Hall to discuss the project and expressed concern as to how the noise may affect them and maintenance and another neighboring property in RPV called just to ask questions. Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if there was a reason behind the code requirement that aviaries over 200 sq. ft. are only allowed on lots over 5 acres m size. In response, Planning Director Schwartz stated that when aviaries were added as an approved structure, staff worked with a resident that has aviaries and other animal keeping facilities and it was his guidance but it was not researched specifically for aviaries. Also in response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Planning Director Schwartz stated that this requires a Zoning Code amendment because a Variance cannot be issued for a use. Chairman Chelf asked if there are any county, state or federal guidelines for aviaries. Discussion ensued concerning the 5 -acre requirement. Commissioner Gray commented that the Schultz property is over 5 acres, but the aviary is very close to two homes. Planning Director Schwartz stated that in staffs initial research, other than requirements regarding exotic species, there are not specific requirements for aviaries. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Greg George addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the applicant's request He stated that the specific requirement of the code have been met and he feels that the 5 acre requirement seems rather arbitrary and he feels that the proposal is a natural addition to the overall environment on the property. 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. The public hearing was continued. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 20 Outrider Road OLD BUSINFSS Continued• discussion regarding Zoning Code amendment relating to preservation of views and interpretation of Measure B. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director 'Schwartz distributed the document pertaining to Measure B interpretation that was not included with the staff report, noting that it is the same document from the last meeting. She reviewed the history of this discussion item and stated that a City Council ad hoc committee reviewed the View Ordinance including Measure B and made some recommendations as well as provided some direction for the Planning Commission's discussion on this matter. • She further stated that the Flaming Commission began discussing this matter at its last meeting and requested further clarification on some of the discussion points. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed a draft ordinance which incorporates the changes that the ad hoc committee suggested with respect to the viewing area, mediation, environmental considerations, view corridor, timing of restorative action, and invalidating orders issued before Measure B. She further stated that there were also several matters discussed but unresolved by the ad hoc committee which included: indemnification and cost allocation for subsequent maintenance. With regard to Measure B Following staffs presentation and discussion consideration of this matter was continued to the April 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. With regard to Measure B, Planning Director Schwartz stated that there were two unresolved matters which included: what is considered "acquisition" of the property end the definition of mature vs. maturing. She further stated with regard to mature vs. maturing, the ad hoc committee recommended using the Sunset Western Garden Book as a guideline. Discussion ensued concerning the difficulty in making that assessment. Assistant City Attomey Coates stated that the goal of the administrative regulations is to resolve some of the ambiguities that have come to light as the City has tried to apply Measure B. She further commented that the objective is to provide guidance in making the required determinations. Assistant City Attorney Coates than provided responses to the questions that were raised at the previous meeting. With regard to indemnification, she stated that the City's insurance does not cover discretionary actions. With regard to what other cites do regarding indemnification; she stated that some cities require indemnification and some do not and it is typically written into the respective view preservation ordinances. Planning Director Schwartz commented that included with the staff report is a matrix showing the provisions in their ordnances. Discussion ensued concerning the pluses and minuses of asking for indemnification. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that it may result in an additional financial burden for the applicant by shifting the burden that is currently on the City to the applicant. Further discussion ensued concerning the matrix and what options are available to the City including the option of not having a view preservation ordinance. Additional discussion ensued concerning Association's view preservation process and the differences between the City's view process and the Association's view process. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick regarding the legal issues and interpretation, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the City Attorney's office will guide the Planning Commission through making sure the policy decisions made and recommended to the City Council are reflected in a legally defensible way but ultimately, an Ordinance reflects the policy of the City and policy decisions are made by the City Council. With regard to the ownership issue raised at the last meeting, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the State Revenue and Taxation Code provides a series of circumstances under which a change of property ownership has occurred for purposes of reassessing the taxable value of the property. She commented that the City may incorporate that definition of acquisition of pmperty by reference or consider other options. Discussion ensued concerning the pluses and minuses of using that definition as compared to other definitions. Discussion ensued concerning estates and trusts including revocable and Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17.15 irrevocable trusts. In response to Vice Chairperson Smith, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the Planning Commission could incorporate the State's definition of acquisition of property. Further discussion ensued concerning inheritance issues and distance limitations. Consideration of this mater was continued to the April 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the new materials provided NEW BUSTNF,SS_ Discussion regarding a Zoning Code amendment to prohibit short-term rental of private residences. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council requested that the Planning Commission study short-term rental of private residences and make a recommendation for an ordinance prohibiting such uses. She stated that the only two currently permitted primary uses in the RAS zone are single-family residences end crops. She stated that if the Planning Commission concurs, staff will prepare an ordinance specifically prohibiting short-term rentals. Following brief discussion, the members of the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider a Zoning Code amendment to prohibit short-term rental of private residences. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. TEEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reported that the City Council took the zoning case at 40 Eastfield Drive under jurisdiction and after several public hearings and a field trip has requested a Resolution to approve all of the modifications except the grading in the rear. ADJOUEL‘TEI Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, April 21, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a field trip to 20 Outrider Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, 410 CoLb Heidi Luce City Clerk Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 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 1 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 Commission at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, 2 Date Date MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DECEMBER 15, 2015 CALL MEETING TO ORDER r 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: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairmen Chelf. Commissioners Absent: None. Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Shahiedah Palmer, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Myung Chung, CMC Architects. Aaron Nichols, ICaraus and Keller Architects. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Marcia Sehoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Ken and Sandy Pickax, 11 Bowie Road Criss Gunderson, Aftbited. 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 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 comes) 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 es corrected. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS ,ZONING CASE NO. 88& 17 MIDDLEIUDGE 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 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 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 YOO). 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 Mytmg 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 Following brief dismission, 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-YI), ROLLING HILLS, CA. (DOTY). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs 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 the plans which show the reduced trellis and reduced splash wall along the rear of the outdoor ldtchen 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 the Resolution is presented for consideration with additional conditions that the light bulbs in the proposed suspended fixtures do not exceed the proposed wattage, that alt 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, Kanus and Keller Architects addressed the Planting 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 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 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 staffs 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 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. "manning" 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 far 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 far public comment Marcia Schoetile, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the Planning Commission in opposition to the proposed Administrative Regulations staling 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 manning despite its age or height. In response to Ms. Schoettle's comment regarding the provision that a tree that has been previously premed 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 maxhnum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the r— 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 staffs 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 portion of the existing house is located in the rear yard setback. She stated that be applicant is proposing Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 to construct a 475 sq. ft. cabana ranging from 14 ft to 19 ft. in. height. Also prulamed 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 far 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 end provide screening. Further discussion ensued concerning the disturbance; the proposed pool and deck; the crowding on the property and the challenges of the lot 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. it 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 trustee 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfteld 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. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs 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 proposed 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. ,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 end 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 staffs 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 coral 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 lightwell. She reviewed the proposed driveway and stated that the existing driveway will be abandoned and blended into the natural terrain. She further stated that the proposed driveway requires 5 R 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. R 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. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ken Picker, 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. Picker in an attempt to address his concerns. Lynn OBI, 31 Chuckwagon Road addressed the Planning Commission to ask if this plop 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. 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(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs 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 lets and the second to construct a 4,745 sq. ft. residence, garage, swimming pool. dressage arena, stable and corral at 11 Saddleback Road. a a 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 aces 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 Califomia 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 stables that have been approved since 2011. Ms. Schwartz fiutha 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 maximimt 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 concerning 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 Planting 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. SCHEDI A.E 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. 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 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 F 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, fad Heidi Luce City Clerk Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 12-15-15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER Provided at the request of Mayor Dieringer on 4/11/2016 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 Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent None. Others Present: 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 Inferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumich, Designer. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented puauc COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NO'I-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 Kulcpatricic 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 Plmming 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 amend Resolution No. 2010-03 to remove a condition of "no further development without Planning Commission review" at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, (Demme). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 Commissioner Cardenas remised 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 stag's 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 backgrotmd 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 he approved administratively if not for the "no further development" condition. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Dave Demme, 1 Lower Bladtwater 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 toremovethe "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 returned to the dais. RESOLUTIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review fur 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 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 1 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 end 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 overbuih 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. Ile 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 r— 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 Eastfield 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 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. 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 lean 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-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). 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 ached 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 coral. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to retain 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 arena 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 ptopused 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 concern 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 11 Saddleback Road with the standard findings of fact Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 • 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.tt of the addition, with a light well and retaining walls into the required front and side yard seiharks; for higher than allowed average height retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, on a ptoperty with a restricted development condition, in Zoning Case No. 888, at 17 bfiiddleridge Lane North, (Lot 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. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and disclosed for the record that he bad 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 bas 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 wells 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 fora Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances at 66 Eastfield Drive, Thomas.) Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 -5- 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 (Pills, California NEW PI iBi iC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. $98. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and a Variance to encroach with 150squarefeet of the addition 10 feet into the font yard setback, to retain 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 staff's 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 nonconforming 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 Inferrern, 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 Planting 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 coral 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, (Jankovicb). 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 staffs 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 andkoipond. 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 hip 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. 201.6-01, Consideration of a Zoning Code amendment relating to prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, delivery. distributing and dispensaries within the City by amending Sectiuns 17.08.050 and 17.16.020, and adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). It bas been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). idgjf 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 Tide 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 Naming Commission in response to recent legislation, collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (M RSA), 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 In otherwise, the State regulations which are much more permissive would apply. City Manager Cruz stated that both Mayor Pro Tem Dietinger and Councihnember Mirsch suggested that this tatter be considered 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 ICarpeles 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 p�vpu.wd by the City Attomey'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 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. Ile 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 Mw. 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 Chapman 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 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 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. R..apn.lfoily submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR METING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2016 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Smith, Kirkpatrick, Gray and Cardenas Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner FIELD TRW Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 3 Eastfield Drive. 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 a 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 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 1 exemption Guidelines. Also present for this field trip were: Ben Cauthen, project designer Luigi Ciappa, representative Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and pointed out the proposed 704 square foot detached garage and its new configuration (with direct access from the driveway), the new one -car parking pad proposed to be located closer than 30 feet to the roadway easement line, the 61 square foot addition to the residence, and advised that the permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and disturbed area of the lot will be exceeded due in large part to the existing tennis court at the rear of the property. Director Schwartz also pointed out the existing 3' retaining wall that will be demolished, the area behind it graded out and a 5' high retaining wall constructed in the front setback, before all present proceeded to the rear of the residence to view the addition at the rear of the lot, and the proposed garage. Director Schwartz illustrated 1 where the proposed stable set -aside area is adjacent to the existing tennis court. Discussion ensued about the existing out of grade condition at the northeastern side of the garage. The project designer stated that the proposed garage will be constructed within the footprint of the existing garage and therefore this condition will remain. Director Schwartz stated that elevation plan for this condition must be submitted and if the out of grade height does not meet the code requirement a variance would be required. Commissioner Gray suggested that the applicant soften the appearance of the exposed side of the garage and construct terraced walls with planting in between. The Commission then discussed the terraced walls and how best to blend them with the surrounding area and provide a minimum of 4' wide walking path around the structure. B. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with a 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. Per the request of the project representatives the field trip was cancelled. 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) 2 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. Also present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson, engineer Matt Schneider, architect Gregg Keenan, contractor Carol Hoffman, resident Eddy Delgado, resident Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge ; . two existing parcels into one parcel, resulting in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, and gave an overview of the 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. The field trip commenced at the driveway portion of the lot where Planning Director Schwartz stated that the existing detached garage is proposed to be converted to a portion of the stable with additional square footage added for the stable and discussion about the driveway access to the proposed stable ensued as the code requires that access to the stable not be all impervious. Planning Director Schwartz showed the 3 - foot wide decomposed granite or grasscrete inlay on the driveway the applicant proposes to satisfy the code requirement. In response, Chairman Chelf requested that the surfaces leading to the stable be pervious and Tavisha Nicholson advised that if that were what the Commission requires, the applicant would comply. Carol Hoffman commented that access to the dressage arena should be provided for very occasional heavy truck delivery of sand and other materials to maintain the arena. The engineer pointed out the secondary roadway access to the west of the primary driveway access that will serve to accommodate this function. In response to Director Schwartz's comment that a second driveway could require a Conditional Use permit, Chairman Chelf suggested that the access to the arena be taken off of the primary driveway. Carol Hoffman also inquired about theproposed three-foot wall along the horse access trail from the stable to the dressage area, to be located between the trail and the pool area. Ms. Nicholson discussed how the wall goes upwards to the residential building pad and that there is adequate separation between the horse riders and the pool area. Everyone proceeded to the proposed stable/corral area where discussion about the proposed 2:1 grading and the cut and benching grading ensued. All present viewed the silhouette of the proposed stable and discussed the existing corrals, which will be demolished. Ms. Nicholson advised the group that the intention is to retain the garage and residence as much as possible and to complete a "major remodel." However, for the purpose of .planning review the project is being considered new construction. The group then walked the proposed trail to the proposed residence, pool and deck area where Planning Director Schwartz pointed out the new house, two trellises areas - one by the residence and the other overlooking the dressage arena, the pool and decking. A question was asked about how much grass area would remain and Ms. Nicholson advised there would be little grass area left after construction. Most surfaces would be a combination of decking/landscape. The group proceeded to the proposed dressage arena and Gregg Keenan indicated where the existing So Cal Edison easement is and Planning Director Schwartz advised that a condition of approval will be for So Cal Edison to sign off on that easement or provide written permission for the easement to remain with the dressage arena located over the easement. Discussion ensued regarding grading and limits of grading and • whether the dressage arena could be moved further back on the lot so that it does not encroach into the front setback. Tavisha Nicholson indicated how that would be challenging, as the rear portion of the lot is very steep and would require more disturbance to accommodate a regulation size dressage arena, unless retaining walls are constructed. Chairman Chelf asked if the applicant would consider altering the proposed accessway of the dressage arena from the existing driveway via a gate and Ms. Nicholson agreed to explore the access further. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Yola i : Schwartz Director 4 Date MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FEBRUARY 16, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chet(' at 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 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, Grey, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf None. Yolenta Schwartz, Planning Director. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. Dave Donee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Ben Cauthen, Cauthco Design Group. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Tony Inferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumicb, Designer. Andy and Sarah Flkin 2 Hillside Lane. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commiission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planting Commission held on January 19, 2016. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. January 19, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted a typographical error in the minutes. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Phoning Commission held on January 19, 2016 as corrected. Commissioner Sntith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RFSOLUTJONS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 Commissioner Cardenas =used 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 remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. She stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request and the Resolution is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-03 granting approval of the applicant's request to remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution No. 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at l Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Cardenas retuned to the dais. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04. A RESOLUTION OF 'IHE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR. A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, FOR GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALLS THAT DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 - FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD.DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. She stated that during the site visit prior to the last meeting, it was noticed that there was an existing out of grade condition near the corner of the garage that will remain with the new garage which was not shown on the original plan nor was it advertised as requiring a variance. She further stated that at its last meeting following discussion regarding the out of grade condition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as revised to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the out of grade condition of the garage. She reviewed the revised plan, which shows only 5 R of exposed wall and included the required 4 ft. walkway around the structure. She stated that the Resolution of Approval is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to express concern on behalf of the applicant regarding the fuel modification condition. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith expressed concern regarding the project stating that while she understands the constraints on the lot, she still feels the lot is overdeveloped and the location for the future stable and corral is not feasible. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-04 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Request for a Lot Line Adjustment of two lots at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ZONING CASE NO. 896. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). 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, March 15, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDMONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OP THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MD)DLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-I, (POST). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO —= BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lan North. She stated that at its October meeting after visiting thesite and discussing the project the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revise the project to move one of the additions out of the seth2rk as much as possible to meet the line of the existing encroachment so that the wall is not in the easement and to address the issue at the rear of the property where there were proposed three step down walls to the lower pad for the pool. She further stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request subject to the modifications to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She further reviewed the applicant's revised request and stated that the Resolution of Approval based on the revised application is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavishe Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirkpatrick and Commissioner Cardenas commented that they are appreciative to the applicant for making the suggested revisions and they are okay with the current proposal. Commissioner Cardenas further commented that he feels the projectisconsistent with the other development on the street Vice Chairman Gray stated for the record that he listened to the audio recording from the previous meeting and visited the site again. He stated that he is not comfortable with the further encroachment into the front yard setback and he feels there is too much on the building site. Discussion ensued concerning the front yard encroachment and the constraints on that particular street Planning Director Schwartz provided again the aerial photograph showing the encroachment of the other properties on the street Vice Chairman Gray expressed further concern regarding the number of variances requested Commissioner Smith stated that she is concerned about the lot coverage, disturbance and the development over the canyon She further stated that she does not feel the project is harmonious in scale with the site. Following discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-02 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith and Vice Chairman Gray opposed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new residence end Variances in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang ]ui Yiu). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, • March ,15, 2016 brginninp at approximately 8:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 10 Bowie Road. 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, swimming pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the deck, walls, pool equipment area and .fi a 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. Chapman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request as revised since the last meeting to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She stated that the applicant is also requesting to retain two existing sheds, which are located in the easement as well as a trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is not comfortable approving anything in an easement but given that the neighbors have not raised any issues, he would be inclined to approve it. He further stated that otherwise, he is satisfied with changes that the applicant made and feels as though the concerns raised have been addressed. Commissioner Smith commented that she appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and she feels that this is a very difficult lot. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he too appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and feels that the concerns have been mitigated. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is concerned with the project because of the number of variances being requested. He stated that he feels the concerns regarding the cabana have been addressed but he objects to the sheds in the easement. Discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Chairman Chelf commented that it was his understanding that the Rolling Hills Community Association approved the location of the sheds with a stipulation that the sheds be removed if the applicant were to move from this property. Further discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Following discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Punning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrickseconded the motion, which carried without objection. The Planning Commission directed staff to confirm the Rolling Hills Community Association's action with regard to the sheds. Minutes -, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16.16 , TONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and Variances to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the from yard setback, to retain a shed and service yard in side setback, for a wall that does not average out to 2.5' in height 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. f Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for an 1,835 sq. ft addition at 46 Eastfield Drive and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in they day. She stated that the applicant originally submitted plans to include a raised deck and has since removed that part of the request She further stated that the encroachment of the addition has been recalculated and it is approximately 80 sq. ft. She further reviewed the applicant's request and the conditions observed in the field. She stated that there will be no grading since the raised deck has been eliminated but the applicant will submit revised numbers. She further stated that the lot coverages on this project are all within the requirements, but the building pad coverage is proposed at 54.8%. She commented that at the field trip, concern was expressed about the height of the structure. Anthony lnfetrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to address the ridge height issue as well as the other issues raised. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he does not feel the addition is in keeping with the rest of the house. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is concerned about the massing but he feels that the architectural features are outside the Planning Commission's purview. Commissioner Smith commented that it struck her as a lot of mass end she is concerned that it does not meet the intent of the General Plan to keep things open and runt. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is concerned about the excessive building pad coverage. Following discussion the applicant was asked to submit a revised plan to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the massing, the height and the ridgeline; as well as the other issues raised in the field. 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 patios into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -Al -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (3ankovich). 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 staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier today. She stated that the project consists of a new 6,631 sq. ft residence with two garages, a swimming pool, and covered koi pond. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and setbacks stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the side yard setback with 325 sq. ft. of the residence and a portion of the covered patio. She noted that the existing home also encroaches into the side yard setback She further stated that the Planning Commission previously approved a stable in the front yard area and as part of this application, the applicant proposes to move a portion of the wall that was part of that project further to the East to provide more room around the stable. She stated that during the field trip, the neighbor's architect requested that the pool equipment be moved and the engineer for this project has submitted a revised plan to show the pool equipment being removed from the southern side and moved to the eastern side to address the neighbor's concerns. She further reviewed the drainage plan, which includes a biofilttation unit to collect and dissipate the water from the site based on the stormwater management requirements. She further reviewed the coverages and proposed grading as well as the proposed driveway and turnaround. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Minutes planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions that were made. Geoff Sumich addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 897. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading, retaining walls over 3 feet in height, swimming pool and miscellaneous structures; Conditional Use Permit for a pool house, and Variances to locate the pool and pool house in the front yard of the lot, and to exceed maximum disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 HRLtide Lane, (Lot 60-RH), Rolling Hills, CA (Elkin). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and stated that the applicant proposes an 800 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the residence; a 470 sq. ft. cabana; a 680 sq. ft. swimming pool and 72 sq. ft. spa with a trellis and decking and walls that flank the pool area. She stated that a variance is also beingrequested to locate the pool and other structures in the front yard area. She stated that there currently exists on the property a two- story stable where the second story is being used as livable arca, which will have to be converted back to a stable per the requirements of the Stable Ordinance. She further reviewed the proposed grading, disturbance and structural coverage. She stated that an adjacent property owner has expressed concern regarding the widening of the driveway and staff will be working with the applicant's representative to confirm the location of the property line. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Andy Ellin, 2 Hillside Lane (property owner) addressed the Planning Commission to introduce himself and his wife Sarah and further explain their request. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop 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. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. 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, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 2 Hillside Lane 10 Bowie Road ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the status of the View Ordinance amendment, Measure B Interpretation, and the appeal of the Cf V resolution, which are currently before the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 2 Hillside Inc and 10 Bowie Road The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 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 Cleric Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner FIELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 46 Eastfield Drive. 10 BOWIE ROAD, ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION FIELD TRIP MEETING. 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. Also present for this field trip was: Anthony Inferrera, Architect Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for Site Plan Review and Variance and pointed out the setback at the front, the westem side setback, and the rear setback, and to the existing legal non -conforming shed in the side setback the applicant is proposing to retain. Mr. Inferrera advised that the applicant recently moved it so it is no longer in the easement but it still remains in the setback. Director Schwartz pointed out the graded pad in the rear of the property where the future stable and corral are proposed. The group then walked towards the front of the property where the 1,635 square foot addition is proposed with 80 square feet of it to encroach into the front yard setback. It was noted that the addition would not be visible from the street or any neighbor due to the steep nature of the lot and the landscaping that screens it. Director Schwartz pointed out the flat roof on the existing guest house and advised that a Condition of Approval would be that the applicant ensure the roof on the previously constructed pool shelter/guest house has been reconfigured and approved by the RHCA Architectural Committee in conjunction with obtaining building permits for the proposed project. Mr. Inferrera advised that the proposed deck was not staked and is being removed from this proposal and Director Schwartz advised that the disturbance will remain as is existing if the decic is no longer proposed. Commissioner Gray inquired about the height of the addition and Director Schwartz answered it is higher than the existing roofline. The architect stated that the span is bigger. Discussion ensued about the height of the addition in the front and whether it needs to be so much higher than the existing house. Commissioner Gray stated that the way the project is staked it may not work when it goes to construction and the applicant may have to revise the ridgeline. The group then proceeded to the rear of the property where the 150 square foot addition is proposed, but was not silhouetted. Commissioner Smith inquired about the roofline as it was not staked and Director Schwartz advised it would likely require an 18 -inch eave. There was concern expressed about whether this addition will accommodate a 4 -foot walkway around the house. Commissioner Cardenas asked whether the utility shed attached to the house, which houses a tankless water heater, will be relocated and where. Director Schwartz advised that it should be shown on the plans. 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. Also present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson, Engineer Geoff Sumich, Designer Tom Jankovich, Property Owner Mary -Ann Jankovich, Property Owner Criss Gunderson, Architect and representative of 71 Crest Road East Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the request for Site Plan Review and Variance. Geoff Sumich presented a model of the proposed development for the Commission's review. Commissioner Smith had a question about the 3 large trees and the owners stated that they wish to retain them if possible. Criss Gunderson advised that while he is reporting back to his clients he does not 2 foresee any objections or issues. In response to Commissioner Smith, Director Schwartz stated that a resident below, and one from across the canyon in Rancho Palos Verdes reviewed the plans and voiced no objections or concerns. In response to Chairman Chelf, Director Schwartz stated that the proposed development is not in an easement, but that a portion of the house and porches are in the side setback. Commissioner Smith inquired if the proposed house could be shifted out of the setback. Tavisha Nicholson illustrated how the eastern side setback is very steep and stated that the applicants prefer not to grade on that slope. Commissioner Chelf inquired about the walls and Tavisha Nicholson advised they are less than 3 feet, up to 5 feet, averaging 2.5 feet. Criss Gunderson inquired if there will be fill for the pool and Tavisha confirmed there would be with some cut being exported. Director Schwartz pointed out where the biofiltration unit is proposed. Director Schwartz pointed out the limits of grading on eastern side of the building pad. Criss Gunderson requested that the applicant consider relocating the pool equipment enclosure to the eastern side of the property overlooking the canyon to avoid potential noise to his client below. The group reviewed the previously approved stable area and the proposed modification to the 3' high wall, which is planned to be moved slightly to the north to allow the owners for a larger open area around the stable. Director Schwartz stated that the existing house could not be demolished prior to constructing the stable and the property owners confirmed this would not be an issue as they plan to reside in the existing home for at least a year. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, —111-6h4D Date 3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 01? ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MAY 11, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present Black, Mirsch, Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Shahiedab Coates, Assistant City Attamey. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Dan Trejo, Acting District Manager, California Water Service Company. Susan Cordone, Conservation Coordinator, Cal Water. Mike and Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Tom Jankovieb, 24 Outrider Road (77 Crest Road East) Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North. Sean Bennett, 2 Williamsburg Lane. Jeff MacLean, 9 Williamsburg Lane. Verna and Burt Balch, 6 Hackamore Road. David Brown, 4 Hackamore Road. Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive. Clint Patterson, 22 GeorgeffRoad. Lynne Ramsdell, 8 Williamsburg Lane. Teny Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council ' Actions.'t.1 A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 27, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION:Approve as presented. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Minch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper reported that Item 9A pertaining to a recommendation from the Personnel Committee for appointments to the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission will not be discussed this evening and will be continued to the June 8, 2015 meeting of the City Cotmcil. Mayor Pieper stated That if there are no objections, Item 6C pertaining to California Water Service Company's proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be taken out of order. Hearing no objection, he so ordered. DISCUSSION CONCERNING COMMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY WANT TO PROVIDE THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDNG THE PROPOSED WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN — SCHEDULE NO. 14.1. Mmutts City Council Mining 05/11/15 Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz presented the staff report stating that in response to the Governor's Executive Order mandating water usage reduction statewide, the State Water Resources Control Board set water usage reduction requirements for each community in California. California Water Service Company's (Cal Water) Palos Verdes District which provides water to Rolling Hills is required to achieve a 36% reduction in water usage beginning June 1. To meet this requirement; Cal Water submitted a Schedule 14.1 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Plan) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) outlining its water budget enforcement measures and plans, including surcharges end penalties, to achieve the required reduction. He stated that CWS has prepared a draft water conservation ordinance and requested that cities adopt the Ordinance. He further stated that CWS has indicated the CPUC has expressed verbal support for the Plan but since the plan has not yet been approved by the CPUC, cities may submit comments in protest of the proposed provisions outlined in the Plan. He reviewed the provision set forth in the plan and the objections that were expressed by Councilmember Black. Mayor Pieper stated that the City is working to provide residents with useful information and resources concerning water conservation and personally, he is working with Cal Water to access his water usage to determine what opportunities exist for water conservation at his home specifically. He noted that Councilmember Mirsch is working with residents and staff to assemble information about water conservation. He further commented that it is possible that resident's water bills could double in cost with the usage surcharges and penalties if the mandatory usage reductions are not achieved. Discussion ensued concerning the legality of such surcharges and monetary penalties with regard to Proposition 218 requirements that allow a City to only charge the cost that it takes to provide a specific service and the recent court of appeal opinion in the San Juan Capistrano case which challenged the tiered rate structure. Assistant City Attorney Coates commented that Prop 218 imposes a voter approval requirement for new taxes and fees imposed by local agencies but Cal Water is governed by the state through the Water Boards and PUC and they have taken the position that their proposed rates are legal and exempt from Prop 218 requirements. She further noted that the San Juan Capistrano case dealt with a different type of water purveyor where the City was the actual water provider as opposed to a private water supplier and it would require additional research to determine if that case is applicable here. Further discussion ensued concerning the reduction requirements and the process for appealing the water budget set for an individual property. Susan Cordon; Conservation Coordinator, Cal Water stated that the appeal process will be available on Cal Water's web site as of June 1, 2015 and there is a wealth of information available on the web site concerning water conservation. Counellmember Mirsch suggested that Ms. Cordone visit the Ciry to see what issues the City is facing and help determine specific strategies for water conservation in Rolling Hills. Following further discussion, Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council direct staff to work with the City Attorney's office to determine the legality of a tiered rate structure at an expense not to exceed $5,000. Councilmember Black seconded the motion. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road suggested that the City wait to see if other cites take a similar action and follow along with them rather than spend money now. Following discussion, the motion carried without objection Discussion ensued concerning the draft proposed ordinance. Mayor Pieper commented that the he does not feel the proposed ordinance is necessary because the provisions Cal Water outlined in its Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be effective with or without an ordinance. Following brief discussion, the City Council concurred not to move forward with adopting an ordinance. Following discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council direct the City Manager to prepare a letter to he sent to the CPUC, Cal Water and West Basin in opposition to the proposed water shortage contingency plan — Schedule 14.1 and tiered rate structure. Coimcilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mike Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council and asked Ms. Cordon specifically if Cal Water will take into account water use reductions that occurred prior to 2013 if a customer began reducing water usage before doing so was required. In response, Ms. Cordone suggested that Mr. Schoettle initiate the appeal process as soon as it is available. Minutes Ciry Comcil Meeting 05/11/15 OPEN AGENDA - APPROXIMATELY 8;00 P.M. - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. Mayor Pieper stated that if there is not objection, the Old Business item pertaining to Proposition C and Measure R funds will be dia'ussed later on the agenda. Hearing no objection, he called for Commission Items. COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (IANKOVICH). RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request which inchuies two separate requests, the fiat for a Lot Line Adjustment at 77 Crest Road East and *helot adjacent to the North and the second request is to construct a stable on the merged lot. She stated that the Lot Line Adjustment is to merge the two lots to create a 10.3 -acre lot at 77 Crest Road East and the Planning Commission voted on 4-0 vote to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the lot line adjustment Planning Director Schwartz further reviewed the applicant's second request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 4,961 sq. ft two-story stable which includes a request for Site Plan Review for grading and a Variance to locate the stable in the front yard area of the new lot. She stated that the proposed stable meets all of the requirements for a stable and further reviewed the applicant's request She stated that the Planning Commission voted to approve the proposed stable on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Smith opposed because she felt the corral was too small for the size of the stable and the stable was too massive. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that she feels that if the lot merger is approved, it should be conditioned such that future subdivision cannot occur and expressed concern that the proposed stable is larger than the existing house on the property. Mayor Pieper called for public comment Tom lankovich, 24 Outrider Road (applicant) addressed the City Council regarding the size of the stable stating that they intend to use the stable for horses and they also intend to remodel or rebuild the existing house on the property to make it larger within the next six months. Following brief discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council take this case under jurisdiction. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-06 authorizing a Lot Line Adjustment of the properties at 77 Crest Road East and the vacant lot North thereof and Resolution No. 2015-07 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 876 at 77 Crest Road East. Councilmember M rsch seconded the motion with Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer opposed. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS, AN ABOVE GRADE DECK AND TO LEGAI.17F VARIOUS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED STRUCUTRES; AND A VARIANCE WHERE PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS WOULD ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS AND A TRELLIS THAT WOULD ENCROACH INTO REAR SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 872 AT 23 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOT 2 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT- OZD-1, (HAMMOND). Minutes City Canal Meeting 05/11/13 Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for stales comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for additions to an existing home and to legalize additions and a stable constructed by the prior owner. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz further reviewed the setbacks and proposed encroachments. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North addressed the City Council to further explain their request and offer to answer any questions. Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-09 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 872 at 23 Middleridge Lane North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GARAGE ON A PROPERTY WITH A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AT 6 SADDLEBACK ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 877, (LOT 18-RH), (REITER). Mayor Pieper recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringcr introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to approve an addition to a previously approved garage at 6 Saddleback Road. She reviewed the history on the applicant's request stating that with the original request for modification, the Planning Commission approved the addition to the side of the garage but did not approve the 155 sq. ft. addition to the front of the garage and upon appeal to the City Council, the Planning Commission's decision was upheld on a deadlock by the City Council. Because construction did not progress on the project code enforcement ensued and through discussions with the applicant and the City Attorney it was determined that the applicant could go hack before the Planning Commission to request to retain the 155 sq. II. She stated that upon further review, the current Planning Commission approved the applicant's request on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Smith opposed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer called for comments from the City Council and public which there were none. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the only additional revision proposed by the applicant is to lower the roofline of the garage, but the Planning Commission determined that was not in their purview. .. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council stating that whether or not it was built without permission has nothing to do with the structure and offered to answer any questions the City Council may have on the project. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council take Zoning Case No. 877 at 6 Saddleback Road under jurisdiction. Councilmember Mhsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection following brief discussion. NEW BUSINESS REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO COMMENCE WORK IN ZONING CASE NO. 830 — MR. WALTER CHANG, 6 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1176 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING AN EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1/4 ZONING CASE NO. 830 AT 6 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 22-RH), (CHANG). Mayor Pieper recused himself from consideration of this casc due to the proximity of his property to the subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the applicant is requesting a two-year time extension to Minima City Council Meeting 05/11/15 4 commence work in a project at 6 Saddleback Road. She stated that the applicant informed staff that they are very close to pulling permit and start construction but the would like additional time to do so. Following discussion, Councilmember Black moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1176 granting approval of the applicant's request for a two-year time extension to commence construction in Zoning Case No. 830 at 6 Portuguese Bend Road. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Mayor Pieper returned to the dais. DISCUSSION ON FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR PENDING UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES PROJECTS. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manager Cruz reviewed the history of this matter and stated that there ere currently three projects that have progressed to a point where residents are requesting the City to help fund engineering, design and construction costs. He further reviewed the three projects and the requested funding amounts which include: Eastfield Drive (33 properties) requesting $154,550 of which $10,000 was previously allocated by the City Council in November 2013. He noted that per SCE, Rule 20A funds cannot be used toward this project Williamsburg Lane (13 properties) requesting 534,252. He noted that a proposed SCE funded project to underground to the end of the street reduced the original amount of 574,252 by 540,000. Hackamore Road requesting 544,731 for engineering and construction costs to underground one pole on the Balch property. City Manager Cruz stated that there is currently 51,020,000 in the Utility Fund and the budget committee is recommending to add 5250,000 as part of the FY 2015-16 budget Assistant City Attorney Coates reviewed the implications of the City Council's decision should it decide to proceed with allocating fluids toward engineering costs associated with the proposed assessments districts for the Eastfield Drive and Williamsburg Lane projects noting that if the assessments districts are not ultimately formed, the upfront costs are lost Mayor Pieper reviewed SCE's proposed infrastructure upgrades in the City planned in phases over the next several years. Recognizing that the City does not have enough funds to underground the entire city, he suggested using a fixed, fair amount for each pole as the projects come forward. Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer commented that the City Council may want to just consider the projects before the City Council currently since future costs are unlmown. In response to Councibnember Black regarding the legality of allocating funds to the Hackamore project, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that is not legal for the City to make a gift of public fund but it will need to be detemtined if the project will have benefit to other properties. Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to determine a formula for allocating funds for utility undergrounding projects and the benefit and importance undergrounding has communitywide. Councilmember Mirsch reported that she hes had ex parte communication with resident Clint Patterson concerning undergrotmding funding issue. She stated that she feels undergrounding is important to the City but where she differs is in her opinion as to how and when it should be funded. She further stated that she does not agree with the concept of funding projects upfront that may not happen and she feels the City should not provide funding until the assessment districts are formed. Mayor Pieper called for public comment. Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Cotmcil stating that the project on Eastfield Drive cannot move forward until they know the cost and they cannot get the costs until the engineering study is done. Sean Bennett, 2 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council urging the City Council to allocate funding to these projects so they can move forward. Mimeo City Council Meeting 05/11/15 Jeff MacLean, 9 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council asking for clarification on the proposed SCE project. Mayor Pieper provided an overview of the proposal. Mice Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive addressed the City Council urging the City Council support the Eastfield project. Verna Balch, 8 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council concerning the pole on her pruyaty stating that the pole affects all four properties on the street She stated that the original estimate was 550,000 and she was going to pay the entire amount but the new estimate is almost 590,000 and since the benefits reach farther than just her property, she would like the City's support. Burt Balch, 8 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council urging the City Council to allocate funding to the Hackamore project because it benefits more than just their property. David Brown, 4 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council urging the City Council support the Hackamore project In response to Councilmemba Black as to what other property owners are contributing to the Hackamore project, Mr. Brown stated that there arc five houses on the street but there has been no formalized cost sharing arrangement between the property owners. He commented that all five are in favor and three have indicated that they would contribute to the project. Ed Smith, 85 Eastfield Drive addressed the City f nnncil stating that he does not feel the individual assessment districts will be successful and he feels that the only solution is to float a bond. Clint Patterson, 22 Georgeff Road addressed the City Council to urge the City Council to take a leadership role in addressing u ndergrounding needs in the community. Lynne Ramsdell, 8 Williamsburg Lane addressed the City Council urging the City Council to support the Williamsburg project. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road addressed the City Council to support Mr. Smith's comments. Discussion ensued concerning the funding requests and options for financially supporting the projects. Councilmember Black suggested that staff contact SCE to confirm whether or not the SCE Rules 20A funds can be used for the Eastfield project. He further commented that he feels the City should support these three projects but it needs to be determined what is the appropriate level of support for each project Following further discussion, Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council approve the funding allocations listed below for the pending underpnunding projects contingent upon staff providing answers to the following questions: Can SCE Rule 20A funds be applied to the Eastfield Drive Project? Can fiords from the Utility Ftmd be used for construction projects? Is funding a portion of the Hackamore project considered a gift of public funds? Funding Allocations: Eastfield Drive 577,000 (including the 544,000 in Rule 20A funds if possible) Williamsburg Lane ..• $17,000 Hackamore Road , , 59,000 (upon 75% completion) Mayor Pro Tern Dieringer seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Staff was further directed to bring this item back to the City Council with answers to the questions above for final approval at the June 8, 2015 meeting. RUBLIC BEARINGS WAIVE FULL READING AND INTRODUCE ON FIRST READING ORDINANCE N0. 342 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING SECTION 17.16.020 AND APPENDIX A TO TITLE 17 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING SHORT TERM RENTAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. Mayor Pieper' introduced the item and asked for stays comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that upon direction from the City Council, the Planning Commission discussed the issue of prohibiting short-term rentals and after public hearing on the matter, unanimously adopted a resolution Minn City Council Meeting 05/11/15 -6- recommending that the City Council adopt an oidinmce specifically prohibiting short-term rentals of less than 30 days and add short-term rentals as prohibited use in the table of uses. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer as to why the limit was set at 30 -day, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that in certain provisions of State law transiency is defined as occupancies of 30 days or less for purposes of Transient Occupancy Taxes. Brief discussion ensued concerning enforcement. Mayor Pieper opened the public hearing and called for public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. 1 - Following brief discussion, Comcilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council waive full reading and introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 342. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The second reading was scheduled for Monday, June 8, 2015. THE PUBLIC REARING ON ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE WILL BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2015 AT WHICH TIME THE FOLLOWING WILL BE AGENDIZED: CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ZONING CASE NO. X62, FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND MODIFICATION TO BASEMENT ACCESS AND A VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT THE REAR SLOPES THAT WOULD BE STEEPER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SLOPES ("DEFERRED ITEMS") IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELDDRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (TONSICH). THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQIBREIMIEENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to June 8, 2015. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS REPORT FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMTTEE AND CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION. At the request of the Personnel Committee, consideration of this item was continued to June 8, 2015. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer City Manger Cruz reported that the SBCCOG is proposing a dues increase of 7% for the next fiscal year. Following discussion concerning what value the membership. in SBCCOG provides the City, staff was directed to provide the City Council with information about the services SBCCOG provides to member cities. MATTERS FROM STAFF UPDATE ON SCE PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD CIRCUIT TIE-IN PROJECT (ORAL REPORT). Mayor Pieper provided a brief update on SCE's multi -phase Portuguese Bend Road circuit tie-in project and the proposed project to underground the utilities on Williamsburg Lane. City Manager Cruz provided further information on the project. He further slated that as a part of the project, the RHCA is proposing to pay for Verizon conduit portion of the project and sent a letter to the City asking the City to share in the cost of that portion of the project. Following brief discussion, staff was directed to agendize the RICA frmding request for the City Council's consideration and confirm that the RHCA will be obtaining assurance from SCE that residents will be protected and that the RCHA will have a process to keep residents informed. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1175 AND PROPOSITION C / MEASURE R ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT FOR GIFTING OF PROPOSITION C AND MEASURE R FUNDS ID THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES. Mayor Pieper introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. City Manger Cruz presented the staff report and stated. that upon further review, Rolling Hills Estates determined that it is not feasible to use the existing poles as suggested by Councilmember Black at the previous meeting. Following discussion, Minoru City Corned Mating 05111115. Heidi Luce City Clerk Mayor Pieper moved that the City Council allocate funds to add the left turn signal only. Councilmember Black seconded the motion which failed with Councilmembers Dieringer, Mirsch and Wilson opposed. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1175 and approve the Assignment Agreement for gifting of Proposition C and Measure R funds to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for intersection signal improvements at Palos Verdes Drive North and Portuguese Bend Road to include the installation of a protected/permissive left turn signal for the east and westbound lane of Palos Verdes Drive North. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Councilmember Black opposed. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION AGENDA None. CLOSED SESSION None. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Pieper adjourned the meeting at 12:06 a.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, June 8, 2015 beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Approved, Minutes City Council Meeting 05/11/15 eerf Reek/ gam¢ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-A(1) & 5-A(2) Mtg. Date: 05/11/15 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND It. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69- A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-0Z (JANKOVICH). AND RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. Concurrence by the City Council with Planning Commission decision of Resolution 2015-07 (construction of the stable) is subject to the City Council's concurrence with the Planning Commission decision in Resolution No. 2015-06 for the merger of the lots. ZC NO. 876. 2. The applicant, Mr. Tom Jankovich, requests a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) between two lots, a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a stable and corral. The proposed LLA would eliminate the existing lot line between `77= Crest Road East (Lot 1, Tract 27526) and the adjoining vacant lot (Lot 2, Tract 27526) thereby merging these two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into a single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.3 acres. Approval of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance is subject to approval of the lot line to merge the lots. The Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit requests are for construction of a stable with related grading and maximum 3 -foot retaining wall, and a Variance to allow the stable and corral to be located in the "front yard" of the joined lots. The 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 total proposed tack use area is 700 square feet, which is 19% of the entire structure. The proposed loft area would be 6.3% of the total structure. The stable would have a center isle and high ceiling, with a ridgeline of 18'5". The corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. 3. The Planning Commission at their April 21, 2015 meeting by a 4-0 vote adopted Resolution No. 2015-06, the lot merger and by a vote of 3-1 adopted Resolution 2015-07 for the construction of the stable (SPR, CUP & Variance). Commissioner Smith voted against the construction of the stable because she found the stable to be too massive and not in character with other stables in the City and that the corral is not adequately sized and configured in relationship to the size of the stable. The other members of the Commission found that the proposed stable and corral is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards (except for its location in front yard) and the stable advances the General Plan goals of maintaining an equestrian lifestyle in the City. They found that the area where the stable and corral are to be located are adequately sized and will be sufficiently separated from nearby lots and structures and is the most logical and feasible location for a stable and corral, due to the topography of the lot and the view from the lot. There were no comments from members of the public at the public hearings and there has been no objection expressed in writing or orally. Staff prepared two Resolutions; one for the lot merger and one for the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Resolution No. 2015-06 contains standard findings and facts for the lot line adjustment, which must be recorded separately from the Resolution approving the construction on the merged lot. Resolution No. 2015-07, contains standard findings and facts and conditions including conditions specific to this project as follows: • That the SF'R, CUP and Variance approvals shall not be effective until the lot merger is recorded ZC 876 • That the construction of the stable comply with all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for stables and any modifications to the tack room or loft area be subject to Planning Commission review • That the stable be screened from the adjacent homes and that landscaping plan be submitted to staff; any new planting shall not grow higher than the ridgeline of the stable • That if during construction the common driveway is damaged, the applicant make the necessary repairs • That during construction the common driveway is not blocked by construction or personal vehicles. BACKGROUND AND MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 4. This proposal is subject to the stable ordinance, adopted in 2011 which requires that all new stables over 200 square feet and corrals over 550 square feet be reviewed under the Conditional Use Permit process. The stable is proposed in the northwest corner of the merged parcel. A Site Plan Review is required due to the new stable structure, and related grading and retaining wall construction. A Variance is required because the stable is proposed within the lot's "front yard" which is the area between the front of the house and the front property line. No portion of the stable will encroach into a building setback. 5. The lots are located in the RAS-2 zone and take access via a long shared driveway with other properties, off of Crest Road East 6. The property at 77 Crest Road E. currently contains 6.6 acres and the vacant lot is 3.7 acres. After the merger the lot will be 10.35 acres or 450,811 gross square feet, with a net area of 418,524 square feet. Currently, the developed lot is developed with a 3,275 square foot residence, 591 square foot garage and 91 square foot service yard. No changes are being proposed to the residence and garage at this time. 7. Pursuant to the Zoning Code requirements stables over 200 sq. ft. and corrals over 550 sq. ft. require a Conditional Use Permit and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed stable will be located in the northwest corner of the property, just outside the front and (west) side setback areas, approximately 170 feet from the existing home on the same property to the south and is estimated to be, respectively, approximately 90 and 155 feet flout the neighboring homes to the north and northwest. The subject property has driveway access to Crest Road E. through at least two properties to the north. Access for the proposed stable will be via a new 17 -foot wide driveway that will join the existing driveway on the subject site. The proposed stable would have a footprint of 3,456 square feet, in a rectangular structure, 48 feet wide by 72 feet long. The ground floor containing 3,456 square feet has a center aisle flanked by five animal stalls, a tractor storage area, a feed area, a 570 square foot tack room/workshop and 130 square foot bathroom. The upper loft area, 735 square ZC 876 feet in area, runs along a portion of the width of the building and will be used for additional agricultural storage. 8. Pursuant to the zoning code requirements the following is applicable to this request: REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED Minimum 6' wide access with roughened surface 17 'wide access -way joining existing driveway with roughened surface (not paved) Stable, corral not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Grading with 3' retaining wall; 1,370 cubic yards (685 cyd. cut; 685 cyd. fill) Not in front yard or side or front setback. May be located up to 25' in rear setback. Variance required for location in front yard Stable min. 35' from any residential structure Approx. 90 -ft. from closest neighbor's home Stable building to be designed for rural and agricultural uses only, but may include storage for vehicles, household items Storage is proposed for a tractor. Stable to have center aisle open to the loft above. PC may require pervious surfaces. Size to include the entire footprint including loft, if any Ground floor (3,456 sf.): 825 sf. stalls; 315 sf. feed room; 165 sf. tractor storage; 1,450 sf. general agric. storage; 570 sf. tack room/workshop; 130 sf bathroom. Loft (235 sf.) - agricultural storage. Minimum of 60% shall be maintained for agricultural uses Agricultural spaces, including storage & feed, incl. loft comprise 2,991 sf. or 81.0% Maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be maintained for a tack room use Tack use area comprises 700 sf. or 19.0% Includes tack room/workshop & bathroom Tack area may have sanitary and kitchen amenities Bathroom proposed; no kitchen Tack area may have glazed openings Windows proposed in tack area, (condition of approval) Agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide & 7.5' high; appearance of a stable door Entry doors must comply; condition of approval Loft is permitted Loft; pro_posed for storage only Loft plate height may not exceed T The total height of the structure at its highest peak is proposed to be 18'434" (Plate heights per condition of approval.) Exterior area of stables may not to be paved Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval) Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous to stable. (Planning Commission may determine the size of a corral) Proposed 550 sq. ft. fenced corral. Access slope not to exceed 25% Existing access at 13% maximum slope Commercial uses or sleeping is not allowed Applicant is not proposing any commercial uses or sleeping in the stable ZC 876 O •l The applicant must comply with all other requirements of Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to stables, as well as to all other regulations including, but not be limited to undergrounding of utility lines to the structure, lighting, roof material, Fire Department requirements and others. 9. Grading in the amount of 1,370 cubic yards total (685 cy. cut and 685 cy. fill) is proposed which calls for one maximum 3 -foot tall retaining wall. The proposed 0.5"-4' high retaining wall along the north and west side of the stable building pad will average 2.5 feet in height and will not be located in any setback A 2 -foot wide concrete drainage swale is proposed to divert water and will either terminate in a dissipater or tie in to an existing buried drainage system. 10. The disturbed area of the lot will be increased by 10,750 square feet (2.57%) or 11.8% total, (49,461 sq.ft. area), which will be well in compliance with the code limit of 40%. 11. There is only one building pad on the property, which accommodates the existing home and proposed stable. The residential building pad (not in setbacks) is 34,815 square feet. The building coverage will increase to 21.3% including the stable. 12. The net lot area of the lot with the merger, for development purposes will be 418,524 square feet. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 7,413 sf. or 1.8% of the net lot area, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas is proposed to be 22,128 square feet, or 5.3%, (35% permitted). 13. The proposed height of the stable will be 18'4 3A ". The stable will have a center isle and will be open to the roofline, except for the 235 sq.ft. loft area on the second level. The stable roof at the ridge point will be approximately 24 feet below the pad elevation of the closest residence to the north and approximately 13 feet above the pad elevation of the next closest residence to the northwest. 14. The following table lists stables /square footages approved since 2011. Location Square Feet / No. Of Stories 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 (2,088 sq.ft. total) 10 Crest Rd. W. 735 sq. ft. first floor / 453 sq. ft. loft (1,188 sq.ft. total) 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 (840 sq.ft. total) 29 Middleridge Rd. S. 2,160 sq. ft. first floor /800 sf. loft with center aisle (2,960 sq.ft. total) 6 Portuguese Bend Rd. 450 sq. ft. one story ZC 876 CONCLUSION 15. When reviewing a stable development application the Planning Commission considers 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 requirements adopted in 2011. 16. In reviewing a CUP the Planning Commission must fmd that the use is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 17. The applicant is required to meet all of the conditions of the permitted uses/construction specified in the Zoning Ordinance for stables and corrals and maintain the structure as approved for agricultural uses. 18. Other required approvals include the RHCA (Architectural Committee), and ultimately Building and Safety plan checking for building permits. At this time, the applicant has not reviewed the project with the RHCA, other than permission for a three rail fence and planting along the northern and western property lines. 19. In response for justification for a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the front yard, the applicant's agent states that the existing home is located at the rear of the property and the remainder of the 10 acres other than the existing building pad consists of a canyon with slopes at 2:1 or steeper. A great deal of grading and significantly larger disturbed area would be required to create a pad that could support a stable that would not be within the "front yard". 20. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines, Sec.15303). ZC 876 Zoning Case No. 876 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEW STABLE AND CORRAL Front: 50 ft. from front property line Side: 35 ft. from side property line Rear: 25 ft. from rear property line (stables only) STRUCTURES Residence Garage Service yard Stable 3,275 sq. ft. 591 sq. ft. 91 sq. ft. 0 Residence Garage Service yard Stable 3,275 sq. ft. 591 sq. ft. 91 sq. ft. 3,456 sq. ft. (not including loft) (Site Plan Review required if size of structure enlarged by min. 1,000 sf. and this increases size of the structure by > 25% in a 36 -month period; for grading and for new structure). TOTAL 3,957 sq. ft. TOTAL 7,413 ft. STRUCTURAL COVERAGE .88 % 1.8% of 418,524 sf. net lot area TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 4.34% 5.3% of 418,524 sf. net lot area (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAUSTABLE 12.69% of 31,175 sq. ft. building pad not in setback 21.3% of 34,815 sq. t building pad not in setback BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) GRADING 1,370 cubic yards (685 cy cut / 685 cy fill) 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 sg.1i must be balanced on site. PISTURBED AREA 9.25% 11.8% (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 CUP requested 3,691 sf. stable/550 sf. corral & 550 SQ. FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A New connecting to existing residential driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing from Crest Rd. E. via easements VIEWS N/A Planning Commission condition PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission condition ZC 876 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 iiniltngs. 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 lmolls); 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 876 0 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 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 uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance 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 876 o RESOLUTION NO. 2015-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (JANKOVICH). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Tom Jankovich with respect to real property located at 77 Crest Road East, (APN: 7567-008-012) and the vacant property north thereof (APN: 7567-008-013) requesting to merge the two lots into one lot, which will result in a 10.3 acres gross lot, and is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part thereof. Concurrently Mr. Jankovich filed an application in Zoning Case No. 876 for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a stable that would be located in the front yard area of the resulting lot Section 2. California Government Code Subsection 66412(d) authorizes lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: (A) The lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; (B) A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; (C) The lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and (D) The lot line adjustment is approved by the City. The City may impose conditions on the Lot Line Adjustment in order to make the lot conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment or to facilitate the relocation of existing infrastructure or easements. Section 3. The lots are located in the RAS-2 zoning district. The existing parcels are non -conforming due to their access from Crest Road East where they share a common driveway with several other properties. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application to merge the lots on February 17, 2015, March 17, 2015 and at a field trip on March 17, 2015. No one testified for or against the project Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 exemption provided by Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Reso.2015.06 ZC No. 876 1® Section 6. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. Section 16.16.010(13) of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(A) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in any subdivision in the RA -S-2 Zone shall have a net area of not less than eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty square feet, (2.0 acres). The proposed lot line adjustment will result in one parcel having 9.55 acres net lot area, (416,381 square feet). Both lots are currently greater than the required two -acre net The net lot area is measured by taking the entire lot area and deducting (a) the entire area within a recorded roadway easement plus the area within ten feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement (b) the ten foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to the property lines; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or parcel of land and (d) the access strip portion of a flag lot. B. Section 16.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(B)(3) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance require that in all cases where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. This provision is inapplicable to these properties as neither property fronts a street and they gain access through a common driveway over several other properties. The Planning Commission finds that the existing condition of the flag configuration will remain and therefore not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Section 16.20.230 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance requires that easements, the width of which are to be determined by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), be dedicated for bridle trail and utility purposes over the strips and portions of land within and abutting upon the property lines and will be recorded concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment. D. Chapter 16.48 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance provides procedures for processing of certificates of compliance, which is a document that acknowledges that subject parcels are considered by the City to be legal lots of record. City records indicate that both parcels were created legally. E. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review or any other Ordinance or Code to any future development of the lot, including but not be limited to further study of soils, geology, hydrology, grading and other requirements. Section 7. In accordance with the foregoing findings, a Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment Zoning Case No 876 as indicated on the map stamp dated March 17, 2015, and on file in the Planning Department is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Reso. 2015-06 Z.0 No. 876 A. The Lot Line Adjustment approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. There shall be easements along the adjusted lot line, as required by the Rolling Hills Community Association. The maps and legal descriptions showing the new property easement lines shall be recorded. C. The lot line adjustment approval shall not in any way constitute any representation that the adjusted lot can be developed even if in compliance with current zoning and building ordinance standards. No development shall occur on the property without first complying with all applicable City Building and Zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations. D. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to the lot at such time as an application is made for development. E. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall not be issued until a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment, and including the required easements and trails, if any, as specified in Paragraph C of Section 6 are submitted to, and approved by the City. Upon the City's approval of the legal descriptions of the new adjusted lines a Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by the City, shall be recorded by the property owner in the offices of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and evidence of the recordation shall be returned to the City. F. The applicant shall record the deed of the property effectuating the transfer concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment and shall submit proof of such recordation to the City of Rolling Hills G. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Resolution or the Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effective. PASSED APP Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK PTED ON THE 21st DAY OF APRIL 2015. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF PROPERTIES AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) AND THE VACANT LOT NORTH THEREOF (LOT 69 -A -2 -MS) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015- 02, OANKOVICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices Reso. 2015-06 ZC No. 876 4 an' CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (JANKOVICH). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: motion 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Tom Jankovich with respect to real property located at 77 Crest Road East requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and corral, with related grading and maximum 3 -foot retaining wall, and a Variance to allow the stable and corral to be located in the "front yard" on a property developed with a single family residence, at 77 Crest Road East, (APNs 7567-008-012 and 7567-008-013). The 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 total proposed tack use area is 700 square feet. The stable would have a center isle and high ceiling, with a ridgeline of 18'5" high. The corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. Concurrently with this application, the applicant applied for a lot line adjustment. The proposed LLA would eliminate 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) thereby merging these two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into a single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.3 acres. Approval of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance is subject to approval of the Lot Line Adjustment No. 2015-02. tion 2 This proposal is subject to Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to construction of stables. A Site Plan Review is required for the new structure and grading for the stable and a Variance is required due to the proposed location of the stable and corral, in the front yard area of the lot, (not front setback). Section 3. The property at 77 Crest Road East is currently developed with a single family residence. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on the subject application on February 17, 2015, March 17, 2015 and at a field trip on March 17, 2015. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 1 8 reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and applicant's representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a categorical exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval subject to certain criteria, prior to performing any amount of grading that requires a grading permit or before any new building or structure is constructed. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new stable and corral, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact A. The approval herein of a Site Plan Review is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and goals and policies of the General Plan because the proposed stable and corral is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards (with approval of a Variance) and the stable advances the General Flan goals of maintaining an equestrian lifestyle in the City in concert with low profile, low -density residential development. The areas where the stable and corral are to be located are adequately sized and will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters both on and off the project site. B. The subject lot is 10.3 acres in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed structure and corral while maintaining considerable amount of open space. The project proposes total lot coverage of 5.3%, which conforms to the Zoning Code lot coverage limit of 35% (of net lot area). The proposed project will be screened from the road and neighbors so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable, in complying with design requirements, will blend with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. D. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed stable/corral orientation are away from neighbors and its general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Landscaping will be provided, including existing mature trees that will be retained to screen the project from view of adjacent residences including on the east side and new landscaping will be introduces to further screen the proposed structures. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 The project utilizes the relatively flat area near the front of the lot to the extent practical for the proposed corral and stable, minimizing the need for grading. Grading for the stable pad would be 1,370 cubic yards cut and fill to preserve to the degree feasible, the natural terrain of the property. E. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable, the contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The graded areas will be landscaped. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be utilized. Section 7. Section 17.18 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable over 200 square feet and a corral over 550 square feet, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of the stable would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable code development standards for a stable, and the area is located in an area on the property that is adequately sized to accommodate the stable and adjoining corral. The proposed structure is appropriately located in that it will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters both on and off the project site. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed stable and corral orientation is not towards neighbors and its general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Additional trees will be added to further screen the project from adjacent properties. The proposed stable is to be located on an already graded area, therefore preserving the natural terrain of the remaining of the property. The proposed location is the most practical due to the location of the residence in the rear of the lot and the remaining topography on the lot make it difficult to place the stable and corral elsewhere on the lot without great amount of grading. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look. The lot is 9.55 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 the proposed structure. The stable will be screened from neighbors view by trees that will be retained and additional trees will be planted. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 17.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. Section 8. Cations 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement that front yard area of a lot be free of structures and wishes to construct a stable and corral that would be located in front of the leading edge of the residence, thus, in the front yard area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone in that: existing residence occupies the rear portion of the lot, making it impossible, due to insufficient space in the rear, to locate the proposed stable such that it would conform to setbacks, yards and required separation of the stable from the residence. In addition, the terrain in the remaining portion of the lot, presents constraints due to sloped conditions, and would still require a Variance due to the exceptionally large "front yard" based on the location of the residence at the rear of the lot. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing grade, irregular lot configuration it would be a hardship to locate the stable in the rear. The expansive open space in the front yard comfortably supports a stable. The limited buildable area on the property due to steep slopes in the rear and sides places a hardship on locating the stable in the side or rear areas. The proposed stable is to be located on an already partially graded area, therefore preserving the natural terrain of the remaining of the property. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 which the property is located because a stable would not affect any neighbor's views and therefore property value and would be screened from them. The lot is located substantial distance and at a lower elevation than the road and is not visible from the road. Development of the stable in the front yard setback will allow substantial portion of the rear of the lot to remain undeveloped. E. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction of equestrian facilities. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case. No. 876 a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit for a stable and corral and a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot subject to the following conditions: A. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080, 17.38.080 and 17.42.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. This approval is subject to the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment application approved in Zoning Case No. 876, Lot Line Adjustment No. 2015-02 merging the two lots into one lot. No construction shall take place until proof of recorded merger of the lots has been submitted to the City. C. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date .of the City's determination D. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including but not be limited to lighting, roofing, undergrounding of all of the utility lines, drainage, grading and others, unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plans on file dated March 16, 2015 and for the size of the corral a plan Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 dated March 17, 2015 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan, Variance and CUP approvals, herein as applicable, shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and complied with prior to issuance of a building permit from the building department. P. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed on all plans and be available at the construction site at all times. G. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. H. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 7,413 square feet or 1.8% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed including structures and flatwork shall not exceed 22,128 square feet or 5.3%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). I. Grading for this project shall not exceed 1,370 cubic yards and be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 11.9% of the net lot area. J. The stable uses are subject to the requirements of Section 17.18 of the RH Zoning Ordinance. The maximum height of the highest ridgeline of the stable shall not exceed 18'5". The surface of the corral, paddocks and turnout for the horses, if any, must remain pervious at all times. The access to the stable may not be entirely paved and may have a D.G. surface and may not exceed a slope of 25%. K. Any future modification to the stable, including interior modifications which would increase the size of the loft on the upper level, tack room, vehicle storage area and other non-agricultural areas, or any changes to the uses within the stable shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission pursuant to CUP requirements for stables. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 L. All utility lines to the stable shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. M. A drainage plan shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a grading permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements for hillside development, and City's Low Impact Development Ordinance. N. If due to the construction the common driveway is damaged, it shall be the applicant's responsibility to make repairs to the driveway. O. Prior to issuance of building permits, two copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall include native drought -resistant vegetation. The existing trees and vegetation along the eastern portion of the lot shall remain and additional vegetation shall be planted to screen the stable from the residences above and to the west. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. The trees, when planted, shall be of substantial size and height so that the stable is sufficiently screened from the homes above. Plants and trees shall not grow higher than the ridgeline of the stable. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced for the stable and corral area, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. P. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and dear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Q. 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permit prior to start of work. R During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. At no time shall construction or personal vehicles block the common driveway. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 T. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management. U. Approval from Rolling Hills Cmommunity Assocation shall be required. V. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED u ADOYfh1) THIS 21th DAY OF APRIL 2105. B'i D M i , ■'AIRMAN ATTEST: cm.digo 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. Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OP ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH CORRAL THAT REQUIRE GRADING AND TO PERMIT THE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 876, AT A PROPERTY WHERE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02 WAS CONCURRENTLY APPROVED, AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, QANKOVICH). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf. NOES: Vice Chairperson Smith. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2015-07 ZC No. 876 9 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MARCH 17, 2015 SA r.r. 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, March 17, 2015 in the City Council Chamber; at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Gray, Kirkpatrick, Minch, Smith and Chairman Chelf. Commissioners Absent None. Others Present Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond R. CruzCity Manager. Shahiedah Coates, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Allen McGregor, Landscape Architect. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North. Terry Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road Greg George, Architect. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTE$ February 17, 2015 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on February 17, 2015 as presented Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. February 17, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on February 17, 2015 as cenected. Vice Chairperson Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission appoint Chairman Chelf to serve on the Committee on Trees & Views. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING_COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING CABANA TO A GUEST HOUSE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 5 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 875 (LOT 82-RH) IN ROLLING HILLS, CA, (RUZIC). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTALr. QUALITY ACT, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request and stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval to covert a previously approved cabana to a guesthouse and enclosure of an open porch that encroaches into the setback by 3 fl. Chainnan Chelf asked for public comment Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairperson Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-03 recommending approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 875 at 5 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04. ZONING CASE NO. 870. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN PROPERTIES AT 1 BUCKBOARD LANE. 1 GEORGEFF ROAD, 3 GEORGEFF ROAD AND 8 CREST ROAD EAST AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LESS THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONTAGE OF A LOT ALONG THE STREET EASEMENT, INZONING CASE NO. 870, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-01 (ROBINSON). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA). Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Minch recused themselves from consideration of this case due to the proximity of their properties to the subject property. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for stafFs comments. Planing Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment stating that in order to keep the Zoning Map and General Plan in conformance with new property lines, a Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan amendment are also required. She stated that before the Planning Commission arc two Resolutions of Approval. Resolution 2015-04 grants approval of the applicant's request for the lot line adjustment between four parcels as requested by the Planning Commission; and Resolution 2015-05 which recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance Amending the Zoning Map and General Plan. Chairman Chelf called for public comments. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Phmning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-04 recommending issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment between properties located at 1 Buckboard Lane, 1 Georgefi'Road, 3 Georgeff Road and 8 Crest Road East in Zoning Case No. 870. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-05. ZONING CASE NO. 871. — RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ROLLING HI,IS ZONING MAP (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2015-01) AND A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMNET NO. 2015-01) IN ZONING CASE NO. 871 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT AND LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PORTIONS OF ADJUSTED LOTS HAVING APN NO. 7567-015- 021 AND 7567.015-022 APPROVED IN ZONING CASE NO. 870 BY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-01. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch recused themselves from consideration of this case due to the proximity of their ptup riles to the subject property. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-05 recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Map and a Resolution amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan in Zoning Case No. 871. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. Vice Chairperson Smith and Commissioner Mirsch returned to the dais. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 BRIEF RECESS The Planning Commission took a brief recess to congratulate Commissioner Mirsch on her election to the Rolling Hills City.Council and to thank her for her service on the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREMOUS_MEETING APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE — ZONING CASE NO. 869, SUBDIVISION NO. 94, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72775, a request to subdivide an existing lot totaling 7.05 acres gross into 2 parcels of a vacant lot located on the south side of Crest Road East, between 17 Crest Road E. and 29 Crest Road E. (Lot 32 -A -MS), Parcel No.: 7567-011-020. At the request of the applicant, consideration of this case was continued. ZONING CASE NO, 876. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to merge two existing parcels into one lot to construct a stable with a loft and corral, and to locate the stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot, at 77 Crest Road East, (APN 7567-008-12 and 13), Rolling Hills, CA, (7ankovich). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the Planning Coaunission visited the site earlier in the day to see the proposed stable and adjusted lot lines; and questions were raised regarding the size of the corral. She further stated that since the field trip, the applicant submitted a plan showing a 1,000 sq. ft. conal versus the 550 sq. ft. corral that was originally proposed and staff prepared a table showing the sizes of recently approved stables and corrals. She further reviewed the applicant's request for a lot line adjustment to merge two existing lots and construct a 3,456 sq. t footprint stable in the front yard area with a 235 sq. ft loft. She further reviewed the applicant's request for walls and the limits of grading which will be balanced on site. She slated that the stable meets the requirements for construction and allowed use. She further stated that the development standards are also being met Chairman Chelf asked for clarification on the size of the corral recognizing that the revised plan he was provided shows a 2,000 sq. ft. stable. Planning Director Schwartz confirmed that the proposed corral is 2,000 sq. ft. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant confirming that the proposed corral is 2,000 sq. ft and offering to answer any questions. Vice Chairperson Smith expressed concern that the size of the corral still isn't large enough compared to the size of the stable if it is to be a working stable. Commissioner Gray commented that since car storage is an acceptable use for a stable, the size of the coral is adequate and no neighbors have complained, he is not opposed to the project. Further discussion ensued concerning the size of the corral and Vice Chairperson Smith suggested that the Planning Commission further study the appropriate size of corral based on the size of the stable and revise the code if necessary. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that be is not opposed to the project given that it meets the parameters set forth in the code. Chairman Chelf commented that he appreciates that the applicant increased the size of the corral. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 876 at 77 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried with Vice Chairperson Smith opposed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17.15 ZONING CASE NO. 872. Request for a Site Plan Review for a 1,389 square foot residential addition and a Variance to encroach with a portion of the addition into the side and front yard setbacks, including with a basement and with a trellis into the rear setback at 23 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot 2 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Hammond). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that the applicant completed a survey of the property and the structures have been superimposed on the survey: She further reviewed the applicant's request for an addition including a basement and trellis in the City's overlay zone. She stated that the applicant is also proposing a 735 sq. R swimming pool with a new deck She further stated that the applicant has submitted a cross section and their representative will review it. Allan MacGregor, Landscape Architect addressed the Punning Commission on behalf of the applicant to explain the cross section and the proposed pool. He stated that there isn't any grading required and retaining wall will not be required. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Rob Hammond, 23 Middleridge Lane North addressed the Planning Commission to further explain their request Commissioner Gray commented that his only concern was how the pool was going to be retained and the applicant has addressed that issue. Vice Chairperson Smith stated that she feels that the applicant has done a good job bringing the lot into compliance. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he feels that the infinity edge pool helps. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 872 at 23 Middleridge Lane North with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO, 877. Request for a Site Plan Review to retain a partially constructed garage addition, which was previously disallowed at an existing single-family residence at 6 Saddleback Road (Lot l8-RH), Rolling Hills, CA, (Reiter). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to a previously approved garage where an addition was constructed to the side and front of the garage and the applicant subsequently requested approval. She stated that the Planning Commission approved the addition to the side, but didnot, at that time approve the addition to the front She sated that since the previous approval, code enforcement ensued on the case and the applicant requested another opportunity to come before the Planning Commission for approval of the 155 sq. fL addition to the front of the garage. She further stated that the applicant has since made changes to the roofline and at the field trip the Planning Commission expressed concern that the proposed tootling may not be feasible, but that is something the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that the Planning Commission should consider only what is under its purview and he is okay with the 5 R addition given that it meets the Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Gray suggested that the applicant have the proposed roofline approved by the Architectural Committee and then the Planning Commission can consider the addition. Chairman Chelf stated that he Planning Commission cannot predicate its decisions on what is approved by the Architectural Committee. The project should be reviewed on its merits and either approved or denied. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 Vice Chairperson Smith stated that she is not pleased with the way this project has progressed but she understands the points raised. Commissioner Gray suggested putting a time limit by which the applicant must complete construction. Discussion ensued concerting a time limit. Tent' Reiter, 6 Saddleback Road commented that he would also have to get County approval and that may take several months. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 877 at 6 Saddleback Road with the standard fmdings of fact and conditions of approval plus conditions that there be no further development without Planning Commission review and that the project be constructed within 12 months. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE 140. 873 and 874. Request for a Zoning Code Amendment to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 17.18.070 to allow aviaries exceeding 200 square feet with a Conditional Use Permit an lots that are less than 5 acres in size; and a request for a Conditional Use Pennit to construct a 338 square foot aviary on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size at 20 Outrider Road (Lot 170 -) Rolling Hills, (Rich). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 338 sq. ft. aviary with a full roof and metal mesh on the sides on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size. She stated that the Zoning Code allows aviaries of up to 200 sq. ft on lots that are smaller than 5 acres without a Conditional Use Permit as long as they meet the development standards. She further stated that since the applicant is requesting a 338 sq. R aviary on a lot that is less than 5 acres in size, a Zoning Code amendment is required in addition to a Conditional Use permit. She stated that the property is developed with a single-family residence and a swimming pool; and there is a set aside area for a stable and corral. She stated that if constructed, the aviary will not cause any exceedances on the lot Structural lot coverage is proposed at 7.4%, total lot coverage is proposed at 14% and building pad coverage is proposed at 36.5% and no grading is proposed She stated that the applicant is planning to keep parakeets, finches and similar birds in the aviary. She stated that owners of two neighboring properties visited City Hall to discuss the project and expressed concern as to how the noise may affect them and maintenance and another neighboring property in RPV called just to ask questions. Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if there was a reason behind the code requirement that aviaries over 200 sq. ft. are only allowed on lots over 5 acres insize. In response, Planning Director Schwartz stated that when aviaries were added as an approved structure, staff worked with a resident that has aviaries and other animal keeping facilities and it was his guidance but it was not researched specifically for aviaries. Also in response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Planning Director Schwartz stated that this requires a Zoning Code amendment because a Variance cannot be issued for a use. Chairman Chelf asked if there are any county, state or federal guidelines for aviaries Discussion ensued concerning the 5 -acre requirement Commissioner Gray commented that the Schultz property is over 5 acres, but the aviary is very close to two homes. Planning Director Schwartz stated that in staffs initial research, other than requirements regarding exotic species, there are not specific requirements for aviaries. Chairman Chelf called for public comment Greg George addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the applicant's request. He stated that the specific requirement of the code have been met and he feels .that the 5 acre requirement seems rather arbitrary and he feels that the proposal is a natural addition to the overall environment on the property. 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 The public hearing was continued. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 20 Outrider Road OLD BUSINESS Continued discussion regarding Zoning Code amendment relating to preservation of views and interpretation of Measure B. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director 'Schwartz distributed the document pertaining to Measure B interpretation that was not included with the staff report, noting that it is the same document from the last meeting. She reviewed the history of this discussion item and stated that a City Council ad hoc committee reviewed the View Ordinance including Measure B and made some recommendations as well as provided some direction for the Planning Commission's discussion on this matter. She further stated that the Planning Commission began discussing this matter at its last meeting and requested further clarification on some of the discussion points. Planning Director Schwarz reviewed a draft ordinance which incorporates the changes that the ad hoc committee suggested with respect to the viewing area, mediation, environmental considerations, view corridor, timing of restorative action, and invalidating orders issued before Measure B. She further stated that there were also several matters discussed but unresolved by the ad hoc committee which included: indemnification and cost allocation for subsequent maintenance. With regard to Measure B Following staffs presentation and discussion consideration of this matter was continued to the April 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. With regard to Measure B, Planning Director Schwartz stated that then: were two unresolved matters which included: what is considered "acquisition" of the property and the definition of mature vs. maturing. She further stated with regard to mature vs. manning, the ad hoc committee recommended using the SunsetWestem Garden Book as a guideline. Discussion ensued concerning the difficulty in making that assessment. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the goal of the administrative regulations is to resolve some of the ambiguities that have come to light as the City has tried to apply Measure B. She further commented that the objective is to provide guidance in making the required determinations. Assistant City Attorney Coates then provided responses to the questions that were raised at the previous meeting. With regard to indemnification, she stated that the City's insurance does not cover discretionary actions. With regard to what other cites do regarding indemnification; she stated that some cities require indemnification and some do not and it is typically written into the respective view preservation ordinances. Planning Director Schwartz commented that included with the staff report is a matrix showing the provisions in their ordnance& Discussion ensued concerting the pluses and minuses of asking for indemnification. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that it may result in an additional financial burden for the applicant by shifting the burden that is currently on the City to the applicant. Further discussion ensued concerning the matrix and what options are available to the City including the option of not having a view preservation ordinance. Additional discussion ensued concerning Association's view preservation process and the differences between the City's view process and -the Association's view process. • In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick regarding the legal issues and interpretation, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the City Attorney's office will guide the Planning Commission through making sure the policy decisions made and recommended to the City Council are reflected in a legally defensible way but ultimately, an Ordinance reflects the policy of the City and policy decisions are made by the City Council. With regard to the ownership issue raised at the last meeting, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the State Revenue and Taxation Code provides a series of circumstances under which a change of property ownership has occurred for purposes of reassessing the taxable value of the property. She commented that the City may incorporate that definition of acquisition of property by reference or consider other options. Discussion ensued concerning the pluses and minuses of using that definition as compared to other definitions. Discussion ensued concerning estates and trusts including revocable and Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 irrevocable trusts. In response to Vice Chairperson Smith, Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that the Planning Commission could incorporate the State's definition of acquisition of property. Further discussion ensued concerning inheritance issues and distance limitations. Consideration of this matter was continued to the April 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the new materials provided. NEW BUSINESS Discussion regarding a Zoning Code amendment to prohibit short-term rental of private residences. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City Council requested that the Planning Commission study short-term rental of private residences and make a recommendation for an ordinance prohibiting such uses. She stated that the only two currently permitted primary uses in the RAS zone are single-family residences and crops. She stated that if the Planning Commission concurs, staff will prepare an ordinance specifically prohibiting short-term rentals. Following brief discussion, the members of the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing to consider a Zoning Code amendment to prohibit short-term rental of private residences. • STEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reported that the City Council took the zoning case at 40 Eastfield Drive under jurisdiction and after several public hearings and a field trip has requested a Resolution to approve all of the modifications except the grading in the rear. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, April 21, 2015 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a field trip to 20 Outrider Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 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 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 03-17-15 EDISON INTERNATIONAL` January 25, 2016 Mr. Ray Cruz City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RECEIVED FEB 092016 City of Rolling Hills By Subject: Rule 206 Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Williamsburg Lane Dear Mr. Cruz: SCE Rule 20 Project Management has reviewed the revised scope for the proposed Rule 20B Underground Utility Assessment District project in the City of Rolling Hills on Williamsburg Lane. The Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate for the project is $45,000 expressed in 2016 dollars. Per SCE Rule 206 costing, the estimate to install the new underground system is reduced by the estimated cost to construct a new overhead system, referred to as the "overhead equivalent credit". In addition, the estimate excludes the cost of removing SCE's existing overhead facilities, which will be done at SCE's expense. The Rule 20B scope of the project was reduced from the prior estimate to only include properties on the west side of Williamsburg Lane and to take into account work that SCE will be performing at its own cost to address system needs. The revised scope of the Rule 20B project includes the remaining crossings and service laterals within the roads and the association roadside easement up to the homeowner private property lines. The mainline will be installed and paid for by SCE under separate work orders to address system needs. However, property owners will still be responsible for installing any necessary service conduit on homeowner private property as well as modifying their electric panels to accept underground service. The ROM estimated cost for this project includes an estimated accuracy variance of + 40%. Confirmation of the project scope of work and SCE firm pricing will be provided after the final design is completed. The ROM estimate is based on the following assumptions: • The estimate is for the undergrounding of SCE's facilities only. • Customer panel and service conversions for SCE electrical facilities are not included in the estimate. Property owners are responsible for installing any necessary underground service conduit on their private property as well as any panel modifications necessary to accept underground service. • Trenching and pavement restoration will be performed based on SCE's trenching and paving standards. 1 Quotes used, to prfak't 4/11 /,cp aFAdA 1ft1m le; ai<<amsbIA,r USf 9 r&W • All other utilities will be participating and sharing joint trench costs to the extent technically possible. • Construction will be performed during normal working hours. • All necessary permits to be issued to SCE shall be issued on a no fee basis. • The estimate assumes continued cooperation from property owners, tenants, joint utilities, community association and the governmental agency. Please communicate the current estimate and assumptions to the appropriate stakeholders. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and should you have any questions please feel free to call me at (714) 796-9830. Sincerely, Jeff Shellabarger SCE Rule 20 Project Manager cc: Tony Mathis, SCE Rule 20 Program Manager Talisa Lee, SCE Rule 20 Program Analyst Project Files 2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AGREEMENT The Agreement is between Southern California Edison Company ("SCE") and City of Rolling Hills ("Applicant") Applicant may request at a future date that Southern California Edison Company perform work related to the installation, removal, relocation, rearrangement and / or replacement (" WORK") OF SCE's electric service facilities at Williamsburg Lane Applicant therefore requests that SCE estimate the cost to perform the WORK. SCE must incur certain expenses for preliminary design and engineering of the WORK in order to estimate the cost to perform the WORK contemplated by the APPLICANT. Applicant agrees to pay SCE for such expenses under the following terms and conditions: Applicant shall pay SCE the sum of $15,000 in advance for expenses incurred by SCE for preliminary design and engineering of the WORK contemplated by Applicant. 7. If Applicant desires SCE to perform the WORK contemplated by the Applicant, Applicant shall execute a separate written contract to perform the WORK. If SCE performs the WORK contemplated by Applicant pursuant to a contract executed by Applicant within one year from the date herein, the sum paid to SCE by Applicant pursuant to this Agreement shall be applied without interest to whatever sums are payable by Applicant pursuant to the contract to perform the WORK. The sums required by the contract to perform the WORK, may include costs for additional design and engineering related to the WORK contemplated by the Applicant. 3. The sum paid by Applicant pursuant to this Agreement shall be forfeited to SCE if (a) Applicant requests SCE to perform the WORK but the WORK cannot be completed through no fault of SCE's, or (b) Applicant fails within one year from the date herein to execute a written contract for SCE to perform the WORK. 4. SCE may require Applicant to pay an additional sum pursuant to the agreement if SCE must modify the scope of the preliminary design and engineering as a result of any change in the WORK contemplated by the Applicant. 5. This Agreement shall not be construed as a contract to provide electric service to Applicant or as a contract to perform the WORK contemplated by Applicant. DATED: 1/27/2016 SCE 14238 New 12/851CW) U\)la5,DJ By Signature City of Rolling Hills For Name and Title City of Rolling Hills Applicant 1 Saturday, March 19, 201E ;:46:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: FW: WILLIAMSBURG WEST SIDE - UG PROPOSAL _ COX COMUNICATIONS Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 2:07:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Ray Cruz <rcruz@cityofrh.net> To: lesliensean@cox.net <lesliensean@cox.net> CC: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net>, Heidi Luce <hluce@cityofrh.net> Finally —its all here Sean! Look at below email chain. Good luck, Ray Raymond R. Cruz City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 310 377-1521 F: 310-377-7288 This is a transmission from the City of Rolling Hills. The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The CITY OF ROLLING HILLS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e- mail. From: Scott Swender <Scott.Swendner aecox.com> Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 12:29 PM To: Heidi Luce chlucePcitvofrh.net> Raymond Cruz <rcruz(acitvofrh.net> Subject: RE: WILLIAMSBURG WEST SIDE - UG PROPOSAL COX COMUNICATIONS Hi Ray — Here's the cost for the design/engineering /walk out of the "WILLIAMSBURG WEST" project should the City decide to move forward. That figure is $2835.00. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Scott From: Heidi Luce [mailto:hluce(dcitvofrh.net) Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 7:44 AM To: Swendner, Scott (CCI-California) Subject: Re: WILLIAMSBURG WEST SIDE - UG PROPOSAL _ COX COMUNICATIONS Thank you, Scott! On 3/11/16 3:28 PM, "Scott Swendner" <Scott.Swendnerecox.com> wrote: Hi Raymond —Trust all is well. Please accept my apologies in getting this back to you so late. The cost estimate for Williamsburg Ln West is attached. It is only intended to serve the homes on the west side of the street. The cost is for labor and materials for an exclusive trench/route for COX COMMUNICATIONS. It does not include conduits from the street to each of the individual homes. The conduit structures to the individual residence would be at the owners expense. We estimate the cost for the conversion of COX facilities to be $31,803.89 (***). A hard number would require a walk out by one of our engineering Page 1 of 2 contractors. Should you want to proceed with that step, we can get you a quote for those costs. As always, should you have any questions or concerns please give let me know. Thanx. Scott Swendner COX COMMUNICATION Supervisor, Construction & Planning 3415 Kashiwa Street Torrance, CA 90505 Office - 310-265-5874 Cellular — 310-621-6425 Scott.swendnerPcox.com <mailto:Scott.swendnerecox.com> *** The construction cost estimates are valid for 120 days from the submittal of this document. Page 2 oft N Aban 24X Tuesday, March 1, 2016: _7:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Subject: WILLIAMSBURG UNDERGROUNDING Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 7:33:12 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Hayes, Dan S (Dan) <dan.hayes@verizon.com> To: Yolanta Schwartz <ys@cityofrh.net> CC: Mcdonald, Stephen A (STEVE) <mcdonald.stephen@verizon.com> Hi Yolanta, The rough estimate to place fiber to the residents in this area is $13K +/- 3K. This include the removal of the overhead facilities in the rear. If we have to place both copper & fiber the estimate would be $30K +/- 3K as the cost of copper is greater than fiber. This is an estimate only and in order to get a more precise estimate, Verizon will require a $1500.00 deposit to do so. This quote is for placing/splicing Verizon facilities only and does not include any trenching, material/labor only. Dan Hayes Verizon Network Engineer 310 793 4159 dan.hayes@verizon.com RECEIVED LIAR 01 2016 Guy of Boning Hills By . Page 1 of 1 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 Stales. 1 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 8'h day of April, 2016, I serve the within City Council Meeting - 04/11/2016 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: E -MAILED MAILED DropBox NONE RH Web site IistSery Interested parties DELIVERED City Attorney City Manager CouncilMembers City Council Dieringer, Pieper, Black, Mirsch and Wilson Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and pdf's in DropBox. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 8'h day of April, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant e zallao rte' INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Next Resolution No. 1183 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016 7:00 P.M. Next Ordnance No. 347 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A. Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 28, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee meeting notes of March 28, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. D. Consideration of the 2016-2017 City Council Committee Assignments. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. E. RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt as presented. CONSENT ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION: F. Consideration of a recommendation from the Traffic Commission to install "ALL WAY" plaques below the existing "STOP" signs at the intersection of Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. Page 1 of 4 5. COMMISSION ITEMS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INFO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -Al -MS), (JANKOVICH). B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING 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 RE'T'AIN TWO EXISTING SHEDS, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE AND 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), (THOMAS). C. (1.) RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (WARREN). (2.) RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. City Council Agenda 04/11/16 Page 2 of 7. OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 BUDGET PRIORTIIES. 9. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION FOR A PENINSULA CITIES AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION (ALPR) CAMERA PROJECT TO COMBAT CRIME IN THE REGION. B. DISCUSSION REGARDING PURCHASING A FAUX SHERIFF SQUAD CAR TO SERVE AS A DETERRENT TO CRIME. (ORAL ONLY) C. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF PLACING A MEASURE ON THE MARCH 2017 BALLOT THAT WOULD AMEND MEASURE B. (ORAL ONLY) D. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDING AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TRANSITION PLAN FOR CITY HALL AND CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX IN ORDER TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT WITH THE ACT. (ORAL ONLY) E. DISCUSSION CONCERNING DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR RESPONDING TO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM ROLLING HILLS RESIDENTS. (ORAL ONLY) 10. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO ASSIST EIGHT (8) WILLIAMSBURG LANE HOMEOWNERS IN PAYING FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN DEPOSIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS 12. CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator City representative: Personnel Committee (Pieper and Dieringer) Unrepresented employees: Planning Director, City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Administrative Assistant, Associate Planner City Council Agenda 04/11/16 Page 3 of 13. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). 14. ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. 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. 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 Deputy 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. City Council Agenda 04/11/16 Page 4 of 4 DRAFT Agenda Item No. 4-A Meeting Date: 04/11/16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Pieper at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present: Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager. Mike Jenkins, City Attorney. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Kathleen McGowan, McGowan Consulting. Bern Galvin, 2 Chuckwagon Road. Shawn de Miranda, 5 El Concho Lane. Verna Balch, 6 Hackamore Road. OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes — (1) Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 14, 2016 and (2) Adjourned Regular Meeting of March 21, 2016 (Field Trip). RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. B. Payment of Bills. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. C. Financial Statement for the Month of February, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. D. Allied Recycling Tonnage Report for February, 2016. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. E. City Council Personnel Committee meeting notes of March 14, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DRAFT Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve the items on the consent calendar as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried without objection. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION NOMINATION OF 2016-2017 MAYOR Councilmember Mirsch nominated Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer to serve as Mayor for the 2016-2017 term. Councilmember Black seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, Mayor Pieper closed the nominations and declared Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Mayor by acclamation of the City Council. NOMINATION OF 2016-2017 MAYOR PRO TEM Mayor Dieringer nominated Councilmember Black to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for the 2016-2017 term. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the nomination, Hearing no further nominations, Mayor Dieringer closed the nominations and declared Councilmember Black Mayor Pro Tem by acclamation of the City Council. COMMENTS FROM 2016-2017 MAYOR Mayor Dieringer thanked her husband, family and friends as well as the City Council for their support and stated that it is a privilege to serve the City. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR PIEPER IN RECOGNITION OF HIS SERVICE DURING HIS 2015-2016 TERM AS MAYOR Mayor Dieringer thanked outgoing Mayor Pieper for his service during his term as Mayor and presented him with a plaque in appreciation of his service. Councilmember Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem Black and Councilmember Mirsch also expressed their appreciation to outgoing Mayor Pieper. ADJOURNMENT TO RECEPTION The City Council adjourned to a brief reception at 7:09 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:28 p.m. COMMISSION ITEMS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF COMMITTEE ON TREES AND VIEWS RESOLUTION NO. 2015-03-CTV SETTING FORTH FINDINGS RELATING TO TRIMMING OF TREES AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD DUE TO VIEW IMPAIRMENT FROM 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-28-16 DRAFT LOCATION OF TREES: 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PROPERTY OWNER: MR. AND MRS. HASSOLDT COMPLAINANTS: DR. AND MRS. NUCCION 18 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD Mayor Dieringer stated that with the concurrence. of both appellants, consideration of this matter will he continued to the City Council meeting scheduled to be held on Monday, April 25, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. OLD BUSINESS SECOND READING, WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING 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 PERMIT THE PERSONAL CULTIVATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND IMPOSE AN EXPRESS BAN ON COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE CITY IN ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz presented the staff report stating that at its last meeting, the City Council introduced this ordinance pertaining to cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana for first reading; and the ordinance is presented this evening, for second reading and adoption. She reviewed the provisions allowed under the proposed ordinance, which include personal cultivation in limited quantities and delivery into the City by legitimate dispensaries with a fixed storefront. She stated that all commercial cultivation as well as delivery by mobile medical marijuana dispensaries would be prohibited under the proposed ordinance. She noted that included with the staff report as requested by the City Council, is an opinion provided by Captain Dan Beringer with the Lomita Sheriff's station stating that in his opinion the ordinance is responsive to the law and does not pose any nuisance. She further reviewed the regulations adopted by other local cites, noting that. RHncho Palos Verdes has not adopted an ordinance and is awaiting the result of the ballot measure relating to medical marijuana that is on the November statewide ballot. In response to Mayor Dieringer, City Attorney Jenkins stated that there is no deadline by which cities are required to take action. Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council table consideration of this ordinance until the results of the ballot measure relating to medical marijuana goes before the voters at the November 2016 Statewide Election are known unless the City Attorney advises the City Council that sooner action is necessary. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. In response to Mayui Pro Tem Black, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the City's ordinance is .silenl with regard to dispensing and cultivation of medical marijuana; but if something is not listed as allowed, it is generally prohibited. In response to Mayor Dieringer, Cil.y Attorney .Jeuk.ius stated that if the City were to take no action, the status quo would remain which is an environment where commercial activity would not be allowed, but cultivation is not addressed specifically. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-28-16 DRAFT Mayor Dieringer called for public comment. Bern Galvin, 2 Chuckwagon Road addressed the City Council regarding personal cultivation. Shawn de Miranda, 5 El Concho Lane addressed the City Council in opposition to an ordinance that would allow cultivation of medical marijuana in the City. Verna Balch, 6 Hackamore Road addressed the City Council in opposition to an ordinance that would allow cultivation of medical marijuana in the City. Following brief discussion and an explanation by the City Attorney as to how the City's current Municipal Code relates to medical marijuana cultivation and delivery, Mayor Dieringer called for a roll call vote and the motion to table consideration of this ordinance carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, AND THE CITIES OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, ROLLING HILLS, AND ROLLING HILLS ESTATES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION AND COST SHARING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE COORDINATED INTEGRATED MONITORING PROGRAM (CIMP) FOR THE PENINSULA CIMP AGENCIES. Mayor Dieringer introduced the matter and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz introduced the City's stormwater consultant, Kathleen McGowan. Ms Schwartz stated that before the City Council is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the County of Los Angeles and the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills to implement a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) as required by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued through the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. She stated that the plan is a 5 -year plan with a fiscal impact to the City of $30,000 per year. Ms. McGowan presented the regulatory background of this issue, an overview of what is included in the CIMP and an overview of the MOU and its requirements. She reviewed the receiving waters for the City's stormwater from the City which include: Machado Lake, Santa Monica Bay and the Los Angeles Harbor and the requirements for each of those receiving waters. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Black, Ms. McGowan reviewed the map showing how the drainage moves to the three receiving waters through improved storm drain systems located in the neighboring cities. She stated the CIMP achieves the five primary objectives outlined out in the MS4 permit and contains all of the required elements; but provides a more cost efficient and effective monitoring on a watershed basis through shared monitoring locations with the other municipalities on the Peninsula. She further reviewed the monitoring plan including the monitoring locations. Ms. McGowan further reviewed the provisions and cost allocation included in the MOU as well as the timeline for approval by the participating municipalities. Discussion ensued concerning the three receiving waters, the permit monitoring requirements and the Minutes City Council Meeting 03-28-16 DRAFT options for meeting the permit objectives. Mayor Pro Tem Black expressed concern that the monitoring plan is expensive and does not actually achieve the objective of cleaning up the water. He suggested that rather than doing the extensive monitoring required by the permit, the City should build catch basins at each of the seven canyons. Discussion ensued concerning projects that could reduce the monitoring requirement including a project the City of Torrance is proposing at the Torrance Airport to address the Machado Lake compliance requirement. Further discussion ensued concerning the pending lawsuits that two cities filed against the State Water Quality Control Board citing that the permit requirement are over and above the EPA requirements and that cities were not given appropriate notification regarding the cost of implementing these mandates. Mayor Dieringer suggested that the City continue to monitor the status of the lawsuits as the implications of the cities prevailing may benefit the City. Following further discussion, Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council approve the MOU as presented and authorize the Mayor to sign the MOU on behalf of the City. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which carried with Mayor Pro Tem Black opposed. Additionally, Ms. McGowan was asked to present the City Council with options for a water retention project at City Hall campus area and provide information on the Torrance Airport project. CONSIDERATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 MID -YEAR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS. Mayor Dieringer introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Finance Director Shea presented the mid -year budget review stating that through mid -year revenues are at $776,000, which is slightly above projections and expenditures are at $680,000 which is $82,000 less than expected, resulting in an overall positive difference of $105,000. He reviewed the proposed mid -year budget adjustments, which include a $10,000 increase in revenue from increased Real Estate Transfer Tax; an increase of $10,000 for legal expenses; and to move $22,000 from fulltime salaries to part-time salaries. Following brief discussion, Councilmember Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file the FY 2015-2016 mid -year review report and approve the mid -year budget adjustments as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion, which carried without objection. MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS Mayor Dieringer reported that a matter related to installation of the ALPR cameras will be brought before the City Council in April upon a recommendation from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Regional Law Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF City Manager Cruz reported that the suspect in at least two burglaries, Charles Vaca was arrested. He further reported the result of the recent coyote control efforts. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None. Minutes City Council Meeting 03-28-16 DRAFT CLOSED SESSION Government Code §54957.6 Conference with Labor Negotiator City representative: Personnel Committee (Pieper and Dieringer) Unrepresented employees: Planning Director, City Clerk/Executive Assistant, Administrative Assistant, Associate Planner The City Council recessed into closed session at 9:06 p.m. to discuss the matter listed above. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Dieringer called the meeting back to order in open session at 10:19 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTIONS FROM CLOSED SESSION (ORAL REPORT). City Attorney Jenkins reported that during the closed session, the City Council discussed the matter listed on the closed session agenda and there is no reportable action. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Dieringer adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. in memory of long time resident Jeanne Hadley to an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council scheduled to be held on Monday, April 11, 2016 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Bea Dieringer Mayor Minutes City Council Meeting 03-28-16 CHECK CHECK NO DATE * 24265 24266 24267 24268 24269 24270 24271 24272 24273 24274 24275 24276 24277 24278 24279 24280 24281 • PR LINK * PR LINK City 0MS, i/itt Agenda Item No: 4-B Mtg.-Date: 04/11/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 4/11/2016 - CHECK RUN PAIGE 04/052016 RAYMOND J. MOORE 04/11/2016 CABALLEROS DEL RANCHO PALOS 04/11/2016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. 04/11/2016 CIVICPLUS 04/112016 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 04/112016 COX COMMUNICATIONS 04/11/2016 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES, INC. 04/112016 FIRST BANKCARD 04/112016 FIRST BANKCARD 04/112016 FOUNTAINHEAD CONSULTING INC. 04/112016 IIMC 04/11/2016 MCGOWAN CONSULTING 04/11/2016 PETTY CASH-EWA NIKODEM 04/112016 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 04/112016 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 04/112016 WILLDAN INC. 04/112016 XEROX CORPORATION 4/1/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL PROCESSING 4/1/2016 PR LINK - PAYROLL 7 & PR TAXES Total DESCRIPTION SET UP NEW FURNITURE & WALL CONTRIBUTION ANNUAL BBQ BILLING PERIOD 227 - 325 QUARTERLY WEBSITE MAINT BUILDING & SAFETY JAN 2016 PHONE & INTERNET 326.425 JANITORIAL SRV MARCH 2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES, CC MEETING CONFERENCE RAY ITCONSULTING APRIL 2016 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES STORM WATER MGMT FEB 2016 MILEAGE, LUNCH MEETINGS, SNACK ANNUAL LEASE ENCROACHMENT FEE BILLING PERIOD 224 - 324 BUILDING & SAFETY FEB 2016 COPIER MAINT MARCH 2016 Processing Fee Pay Period - March 16, 2016 Through March 29, 2016 I, Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager of Rolling Hills, California cenify that the above demands are accurate and there is avail ble in the General Fund a balance of $46,334.68 for the payment of:,, s. a • Previously Disbursed City Manager AMOUNT 225.00 5,000.00 450.32 1,382.41 9,219.42 400.04 368.00 710.31 585.77 516.00 155.00 2,390.00 272.33 100.00 807.87 4,962.50 33.00 56.45 18,700.26 S 46,334.68 27.577.97 Printed on Recycled Paper Agenda Item No: 4-C Mtg. Date: 04/25/16 Finance / Budget / Audit Committee March 28, 2016 6:00 PM Meeting Notes Participants James Black, Councilmember Leah Mirsch, Councilmember Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Terry Shea, Finance Director Meeting was called to order at 6:02 pm. Review Investment Policy; Financial, Budget and Debt Policy; and Asset Capitalization Policy. The City Manager indicated on the posted Agenda there was an error that stated there were no recommended changes. However, we are recommending a change to the Investment Policy as well as the Financial, Budget and Debt Policy. The City Manager indicated we would have to have the changes approved at a future Council Meeting. Investment Policy recommended change was to Section 5.0 Delegation of Authority, to remove the Investment Account: Treasury Direct, Department of Treasury, United States. The Finance Director indicated the reason for the change is that the Treasury Direct accounts are no longer available. Both Committee Members approved the change. Concerning the Financial, Budget and Debt Policy, the recommended change was to Section 2, Financial Reporting Policies. The Finance Director stated he was recommending the City send the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to the GFOA for the Award Program every year rather than every other year. Also, eliminate the requirement to submit the Budget every other year to the GFOA. Committee Member Black asked what the cost of the Award Program was, and the Finance Director indicated that it was $750 per year. Committee Member Black does not feel the City needs to submit for the award at all, and the City should save the money. Committee Member Mirsch acquiesced to Committee Member Black's suggestion and staff will now not budget for this award. Consideration of Update to Schedule of Fees and Charges The City Manager went over the Schedule of Fees and Charges and indicated that Staff is not recommending any changes to the current schedule. He also indicated that staff does not have enough information concerning the Building Permit Related Fees from Los Angeles County as of the date of this meeting to make an informed decision about these fees, and staff will \'J provide the information to the entire City Council when available in order for the entire City Council to decide on any changes. There however was some general discussion about the fee multiplier concerning Building Permit Related Fees, but no decision was made. Committee Member Black indicated the City has had surpluses the last few years and the City Council should lower the multiplier. The City Manager indicated the City is planning to again transfer $250,000 of the surplus to Undergrounding Utility Fund as prescribed in the City's Financial Policy. Committee Member Mirsch indicated that the City may need the surplus funds when the County mandates that all residents must remove septic tanks and install sewer lines. The City Manager also stated that we may have to make improvements to City Hall, finance local and regional storm water projects, and have funds available for significant lawsuits. The Committee Members reviewed the other items besides building permit related fees that are on Schedule of Fees and Charges and recommended no changes to any of the other fees. The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 pm. Notes prepared by: Terry Shea 0 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-D Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER BY: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE 2016-2017 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. DATE: APRIL 11, 2016 ATTACHMENT: 2016-2017 Committee Liaison and Assignments Committee Goals and Objectives FPPC Form 806 Attached are the 2016-17 Committee Liaisons and Assignments as proposed by Mayor Dieringer. Among the assignments, the Peninsula Cities Mayors Committee and Sanitation District are both automatically changed each year to the current Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem is typically listed as the alternate delegate. Also attached is a brief description of the goals and objectives of each Committee. With approval of the assignments, a letter will be prepared for the Mayor's signature informing agencies/organizations of their respective City Council liaison. As necessary, Subcommittee meetings will be scheduled throughout the year. Additionally, based on the appointments and to comply with the FPPC regulation 18705.5, the City Clerk has prepared and posted FPPC Form 806. A copy is attached for the City Council's information. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Committee Liaisons and Assignments as presented. RC:hl 16-17 Committee Assign-sta.docx 1. OFFICIAL COMMITTEES/BOARDS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2016/2017 COMMITTEE LIAISON BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a. CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION D A b. LEAGUE OF CA CITIES D A c. SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS A D d. LA SANITATION DISTRICT NO.5 A D e. VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT __ 1 f. SMBRC - WATERSHED ADVISORY COUNCIL (Paul Grubs -D) - __ _ __ g. PEN. REG. LAW ENFORCEMENT COM./PUBLIC SAFETY X X h. PENINSULA CITIES MAYORS' COMMITTEE A D i. LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE A D j. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) A D 2. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES (STANDING) COMMITTEE BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a. PERSONNEL X X b. FINANCE/BUDGET/AUDIT X X c. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON X d. EMERGENCY SERVICES/ DISASTER PREPAREDNESS X X e. TENNIS CLUB LIAISON X f. CABALLEROS LIAISON X g. INSURANCE COMMITTEE (CJPIA) D X h. WOMEN'S COMMUNITY CLUB LIAISON X i. TRAFFIC COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE X j. SOLID WASTE/ RECYCLING X X k CITY/ ASSOCIATION LIAISON X I. UNDERGROUND UTILITY X X 3. AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES (FYI ONLY) COMMITTEE BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a. FIRE CODE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE X X b. FIRE FUEL REDUCTION AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE X X D = Delegate A = Alternate X = Representative DRAFT 04/01/16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULES and OBJECTIVES 1. OFFICIAL COMMITTEES/BOARDS COMMITTEE MEETING TIME MEETING LOCATION MISSION OF ORGANIZATION CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION (310) 861-3908 3rd Wednesday of each month 6:30 p.m. Social; 7:00 p.m. Dinner/Meeting Rotates, as different cities host the meeting Focus on issues specific to contracting for municipal services and broader issues affecting all contract cities. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1 st Thursday of each month 6:00 p.m. Reception 7:00 p.m. Dinner/Meeting Various Locations For cities in Los Angeles County to exchange ideas and information and share the advantages of cooperative advocacy. SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (SBCCOG) (310) 374-1819 4th Thursday of each month 7:00 p.m. Various Locations Serves to provide a forum to ensure that cities retain local control, and obtain desired outcomes from federal, state, and regional agencies. L.A. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 (213) 685-5217 3rd Wednesday of each month 1:30 p.m. Torrance City Hall -3rd Floor Assembly Room 3031 Torrance Blvd. Torrance Serves to collect, treat and dispose of wastewater and provide for the disposal and management of solid wastes in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner. VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (310) 915-7370 2nd Thursday of each month 7:00 p.m. District Office 6750 Centinela Ave. Culver City Serves to control insect vectors and surveillance of vector -borne diseases. SANTA MONICA BAY RESTORATION COMMISSION / WATERSHED ADVISORY COUNCIL As noticed As noticed Restoration and enhancement of the Santa Monica Bay through actions and partnerships that improve water quality, conserve and rehabilitate natural resources, and protect the Bay's benefits and values. April 4, 2016 Page 1 of 5 1. OFFICIAL COMMITTEES/BOARDS (continued) COMMITTEE MEETING TIME MEETING LOCATION MISSION OF ORGANIZATION PENINSULA REGIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE Quarterly on 2nd Thursday of February, May, August and November @ 8:00 a.m. City of Rolling Hills City Council Chambers 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills Review, recommend and discuss regional law enforcement in Peninsula region. PENINSULA CITIES MAYORS COMMITTEE 3rd Wednesday of each month before the Sanitation District Meeting; 12:00 noon Luncheon The Depot 1250 Cabrillo Avenue Torrance Discuss matters of concern to Peninsula Cities. LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE Meets 3-4 times per year at the call of the Chairman Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 W. Temple St, LA or various other locations. Members include the Mayor (or appointee) of each city within LA County. Duties are to appoint City representatives to such Boards, Commissions and Agencies as may be required by law (ie: LAFCO, SCAQMD, MTA, Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee and California Coastal Commission) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) Varies based on the committee/task force SCAG Offices 818 W. 7th St., 12th Floor Los Angeles To facilitate a forum to develop and foster the realization of regional plans that improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. April 4, 2016 Page 2 of 5 2. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES COMMITTEE MEETING FREQUENCY ROLE PURPOSE/GOALS/OBJECTIVES Personnel 1. As needed for consideration of the Recommend a course of • Consider candidates for appointment of Commissioners and Committee action to the City Council. Commissions and Committees. members. 2. A minimum of lx/yr for review of the City • Respond to compensation matters recommended by the City Manager's contract. Manager. 3. Generally called at request of City Manager. Finance/Budget/Audit 1. A minimum of 1 x/yr for review of the annual Recommend a course of • Evaluate and consider budget and audit findings, review of the City's investment and financial policies and review of the proposed fiscal year budget. action to the City Council. financial matters to maintain the City in a positive and safe fiscal position. 2. Generally called at request of City Manager. 3. As needed to respond to financial concerns or fiscal irregularities. Planning Commission As needed to address items of mutual interest Serve as a conduit on matters • Provide the Commission with a Liaison between the City Council and Planning between the City Council and perspective of the City Council. Commission. Planning Commission. Emergency Services / As needed to address emergency services / Serve as a conduit on matters • Provide staff with information and Disaster Preparedness disaster preparedness issues in the community related to emergency services guidance for the direction of the Representative / disaster preparedness Committee. • Chair meetings. Tennis Club Liaison As needed to address items of mutual interest Serve as a conduit on matters • Represent the City at social events between the City Council and Tennis Club. between the City Council and of the Club. Tennis Club. • Provide event -related information from the Club to the City Council. • Represent the City before the Club on specific topics as directed by the City Council. April 4, 2016 Page 3 of 5 2. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES (continued) COMMITTEE MEETING FREQUENCY ROLE PURPOSE/GOALS/OBJECTIVES Caballeros Liaison As needed to address items of mutual interest between the City Council and Caballeros. Serve as a conduit on matters between the City Council and Caballeros. • Represent the City at social events of the organization. • Provide event -related information from the organization to the City Council. • Represent the City before the organization on specific topics as directed by the City Council. Insurance Committee (CJPIA) One meeting per year. Represent Rolling Hills at the annual Board meeting. • Represent the City before the organization. • Provide information from the organization to the City Council. Women's Community Club Liaison As needed to address items of mutual interest between the City Council and Women's Club. Serve as a conduit on matters between the City Council and Women's Club. • Represent the City at social events of the organization. • Provide event -related information from the organization to the City Council. • Represent the City before the organization on specific topics as directed by the City Council. Traffic Commission Representative 4`h Thursday of odd months. Serves as Chair of the Traffic Commission • Chair meetings. Solid Waste/Recycling As needed. Serve as a conduit between the solid waste hauler(s) and the City Council. • Evaluate and consider financial matters, service levels and regulation related to the collection and disposal of solid waste. April 4, 2016 Page 4 of 5 2. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES (continued) COMMITTEE MEETING FREQUENCY ROLE PURPOSE/GOALS/OBJECTIVES City/Association As needed to address items between the City Serve as a conduit for the • Represent the City at social events Liaison Council and the Rolling Hills Community dissemination of information of the organization. Association (RHCA). between the City Council and RHCA. • Provide event -related information from the organization to the City Council. • Represent the City before the organization on specific topics as directed by the City Council. Underground As needed. Address topics related to the • Evaluate opportunities and Utility undergrounding of utilities and present recommendations to the programs for undergrounding utilities. City Council. • Consider and recommend programs to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES COMMITTEE MEETING FREQUENCY ROLE PURPOSE/GOALS/OBJECTIVES Fire Code As needed. Address topics related to the application of the Fire Code and present recommendations to the City Council. • Evaluate and decide if the City should follow the State or County Fire Code • Make a recommendation to the City Council Fire Fuel Reduction As needed. Address topics related to the reduction of the fire fuel load in the City and present recommendations to the City Council. • Determine what measures the City should take with regard to fire prevention strategies • Consider and recommend programs to the City Council April 4, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Agency Report of: Public Official Appointments 1. Agency Name City of Rolling Hills California 806 Form V For Official use ony Division, Department, or Region (IfApplicable) Designated Agency Contact (Name,Title) Heidi Luce, City Clerk page g 1 of 1 Date Posted: April 8, 2016 Area Code/Phone Number 310-377-1521 E-mail hluce@cityofrh.net •7 (Month, Day, Yeah 2. Appointments Agency Boards and Commlastons Name of Appointed Person APPt Data and Length of Tenn Per Meeting/Annual Salary/Stipend Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 5 Board of Directors /Name Dieringer, Bea / 04 / 11 / 16 1 Per Meeting: $ 125 1 Estimated Annual: ❑$2,001-s3.000 °a`°" Black, James Alternate it any °° Daft 12 months / Ilse -stoup ®51,001-$2,000 (Lest Fiy) LepU are., • Oa., /Name 1 // / Per Meeting' $ 1 Estimated Annual: (L.* Fife Altemate if any MOMS. 1 • $0-$1,000 • $2.001-$3,000 hut. Fia) Le,Qh dT • $1.001-$2.000 • Outer /Name / _/ 1 1 Per Meeting. $ 1 Estimated Annual: (Lett Fiaa Altemate It any Moos 1 ■ $o-$1,000 ❑$1,001-$2,000 • $2,001-$3,000 0 AiA, Fi31) Length alien ou,.. (Name 1 / /— / Per Meeting' $ / Estimated Annual: ❑s0-si too (ULL AAA Altemate if any APO OM / • $2,001-$3,000 asst. F+w "Min a limo • $1,00142,000 • Other 3. Verification A Public Document 1 have read and u Ears nd FPPC Regulation 18705.5. I have venhad that the appointment and information identified above is tru fo the best of my information and belie/ WI tiff) Signature a/ Agency Head or Designee Heidi Luce Print Name City Clerk April 8, 2016 (Month, Day. Yead Two Comment' FPPC Form 806 (6/13) FPPC Toll -Free Helpline: 866/ASK-FPPC (866/275-3772) INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-E Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER !' SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL COMPLAINT ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. DATE: April 11, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 1183 that affirms and modifies an order of the City Manager concerning the Ostriker/Chaisson aggressive animal case. BACKGROUND On December 18, 2015, the City received a formal complaint filed by Mr. Matthew Chaisson (8 Crest Road East) regarding Azul, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker (27 Caballeros Rd.). The complaint alleged that Azul has entered Mr. Chaisson s property on three occasions (the last being on December 11, 2015) and has killed one of his chickens during each incident. As is standard procedure, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was requested by the City to conduct an evaluation of the complaint. The investigation included an interview and a visit to the site. o On January 28, 2016, the City received a report inclusive of findings and recommendations from Animal Care and Control Officer Eva Landas. The investigative report concluded that the incident involving Azul occurred and thus, it was determined that the complaint received by the City to be meritorious. Thereafter, on February 3, 2016, a letter was sent by the City Manager to the parties transmitting Officer Landas' report and, along with City Manager's determination and order that Azul be confined to Dr. Ostriker's property and under restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off his property. On February 11, 2011 Dr. Ostriker dropped by City Hall to meet the City Manager in order to discuss the Animal Attack case. During this meeting, Dr. Ostriker offered to compensate Mr. Chaisson for the loss of his three chickens as an offer of good will to Mr. Chaisson. However, Dr. Ostriker made a request of the City Manager to relieve him of the requirement of walking Azul always with a leash because he is disabled and cannot handle a leash. If he was allowed to walk Azul without a leash, he stated he would agree to sign any legal document that would make him personally liable for any further attack was proven to be Azul, and would not walk Azul anywhere near Mr. Chaisson s property in the future. The City Manager left the meeting with Dr. Ostriker by stating he would need to check with the City Attorney to determine if his proposal is feasible and if he could consider it administratively. After the City Manager discussed the proposal with the City Attorney, the City Manager was informed that he could not consider any proposal administratively because the Municipal Code requires any amendment to the City Manager's original order can only be considered by the City Council. The City Manager then contacted Dr. Ostriker that he would need to appeal his decision before the City Council by submitting it in writing to the City Clerk and pay a $40 Appeal Fee. Dr. Ostriker stated he submitted a written appeal when he met with the City Manager the previous week and would come to City Hall to pay the Appeal Fee. The City Manager did not remember receiving the written appeal in question and requested that Dr. Ostriker to bring another copy when he came to City Hall to pay the Appeal Fee. Dr. Ostriker came to City Hall to submit the written appeal and paid the Appeal Fee on February 22nd. On March 1, 2016, a letter was forwarded to the parties acknowledging receipt of the appeal. Also included in the letter, was the date of the City Council's consideration of the appeal and the procedures for the appeal. DISCUSSION The City Council heard the appeal of the aggressive animal case pursuant to Section 6.24.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code on March 14, 2016. The City Council listened to testimony from the City Manager and Dr. Ostriker, and took in consideration the written testimony and staff report to make a make a decision concerning the appeal. The City Council modified the City Manager's original order by allowing the Dr. Ostriker to walk his dogs (including Azul) without a leash, except near the property where Mr. Chaisson's chickens are located. The enclosed resolution drafted by staff provides the logistical details of the modified order of the City Council that it believes follows the intent of the City Council's action on March 14, 2016. NOTIFICATION The parties involved in the appeal have been notified. RRC:hl Ostriker Animal Attack appeal.docx O THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. The proceedings described in this Resolution were conducted pursuant to the authority and procedures set forth in Chapter 6.24 of Title 6 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, entitled "Aggressive Animals." All "section" references in this Resolution are to sections contained in Chapter 6.24. Section 2. The subject of the proceedings described in this Resolution is a male Spaniel named Azul ("the dog"), owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker ("Owner"), who reside at 27 Caballeros Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("City"). Section 3. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summarized as follows, more detailed descriptions of which can be found in the City Council staff report dated March 14, 2016 and the attachments thereto, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth: A. Upon receipt of a complaint on December 18, 2015 from Mr. Matthew Chaisson, 8 Crest Road East, an investigation conducted by the City Manager and the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (the "Department") determined that on December 11, 3015, Azul had, while off the Ostriker's property, engaged in an aggressive act (an attack) against Mr. Chaison's chicken, killing it in an unprovoked attack. Pursuant to Section 6.24.050, the City Manager, in his letter to the Ostriker's dated February 3, 2016, determined that the nuisance allegations had merit and based on the severity of the attack and the fact that Azul killed the chicken, ordered Azul permanently confined to the Ostriker's property and uder a restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, the Owners appealed the City Manager's order of February 3, 2016. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on March 14, 2016. The City Council received a written staff report containing numerous attachments and correspondence from the Owners and a report from the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Testifying at the hearing were the City Manager and the Owners. The City Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision. Section 5. Based on all of the foregoing, the City Council makes the following factual findings: A. Azul by all accounts has a history of aggressive behavior towards chickens. Evidence suggests that Azul has been involved in aggressive behavior towards Mr. Chaisson's chickens prior to Resolution No. xxxx -1- this event, but Mr. Chaisson chose not to file a complaint for an attack prior to this event. This is the first confirmed attack by Azul. B. The evidence shows that Azul killed Mr. Chaisson's chicken during the December 1, 2015 incident. Section 6. In addition to the foregoing findings, the City Council draws the following conclusions from the evidence: A. Animal Control Officer Landas through her report confirmed that Azul killed the chicken. However, she found Azul friendly and there is no history that he has attacked humans or other types of animals other than chickens. B. The City Council finds that if allowed to roam free near the Chaisson's property or any other property where chickens may be located, Azul may pose a risk of harm to chickens. An attack by a dog against another animal is unacceptable in a community without a leash law. The evidence shows that the attack occurred, and that future aggressive behavior is possible. C. At the hearing of March 14, 2016, the Owners were directed by the City Council that Azul must be permanently confined to the Owner's property. The Owner must also maintain the perimeter fencing in proper working order. D. Dr. Ostriker testified that he is disabled and unable to walk his dogs by utilizing a leash. E. Dr. Ostriker testified that if permitted to walk Azul without a leash, he will not travel near the Chaisson's home with Azul. Further, Dr. Ostriker stated for the record that he will assume financial responsibility for any damages if Azul harms a chicken while off leash. Section 7. The City Council hereby affirms the decision of the City Manager requiring that Dr Ostriker permanently confine Azul to his property and maintain the perimeter fencing on the property in proper working order. The City Council hereby modifies the decision of the City Manager based on the evidence received de novo at its hearing of March 14, 2016 pursuant to Section 6.24.070 relieving Dr. Ostriker of the requirement that Azul be restrained by a leash when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, so long as he remains more than 300 feet from the property line of the Chaisson home and any other residence that keeps chickens. Except when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, Azul must be restrained by a leash by a peson cabpable of controlling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Violations of any of the provisions of this Resolution or failure of confining devices that cause Azul to escape the confinement of the Osktiker property shall be investigated pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.24.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11'" day of April, 2016. Bea Dieringer Mayor Resolution No. xxxx -2- c ATTEST: Heidi Luce City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SS The foregoing Resolution No. XXXX entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 11, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Heidi Luce City Clerk Resolution No. xxxx -3- TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 4-F Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER /'- HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO INSTALL "ALL WAY" PLAQUES BELOW THE EXISTING "STOP" SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF EASTFIELD DRIVE AND HACICAMORE ROAD. DATE: April 11, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: March 24, 2016 Staff Report to Traffic Commission RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation to install "All Way" plaques below the existing stop signs at the intersection of Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At its March 24th meeting, the Traffic Commission considered a request from concerned residents on Hackamore Road to install additional signage at the stop sigs controlling the Hackamore Road/Eastfield Drive intersection for traffic safety purposes. At the City Manager's request, the City's Traffic Engineer spoke to the concerned resident and visited the site to assess the request. At the March 24th Traffic Commission meeting she reported that although it is mostly a non-compliance issue, she recommends installation of "ALL WAY" plaques below the existing stop signs to increase awareness of the three-way intersection. She also recommended that during the City's next traffic striping project, the stop bars be moved to be better define the intersection and make Hackamore more noticeable. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost for purchase and installation of the plaques is $280. Sufficient funds exist in the Traffic Safety Fund (Line Item #13-7000-929) to cover this cost. NOTIFICATION Hackamore Road residents, resident at 53 Eastfield Drive and the Sheriff's Department. RRC:hl All Way Stop Hackaraore Rd_stafjreport..docx ed, al taiga, qe ea INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 6-B Mtg. Date: 03/24/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION CONCERNING A REQUEST FROM RESIDENTS FOR THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION TO CONSIDER INSTALLING THREE WAY STOP SIGNS IN THE VICINITY OF EASTFIELD DRIVE AND HACKAMORE ROAD. DATE: March 24, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: January 31, 2016 Letter from "Concerned Residents of Hackamore Road". RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Traffic Commission consider a request from concerned residents on Hackamore Road to install two 3 -way stop signs on Hackamore Road and Eastfield Drive after hearing an oral report provided by the City's Traffic Engineer. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION A letter written by concerned residents on Hackamore Road was received by the City on February 1, 2016 requesting that the Traffic Commission take action by recommending to the City Council to approve two 3 -way stop signs at Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road, and another one at the pre -stop sign near 53 Eastfield Drive for the purpose to improve public safety. The residents believe that these two signs are necessary due to near collisions caused by drivers driving up Eastfield Drive who are unaware of the 3 -way intersection at Hackamore Road and Eastfield Drive. The City's Traffic Engineer will need to provide her professional opinion concerning the need for these proposed signs. At the time that this report was written, the Traffic Engineer had not yet been in the field to evaluate the proposal. Therefore, she will be -1- providing the Traffic Commission an oral report concerning her professional opinion about the proposal at the meeting. NOTIFICATION Hackamore Road residents, resident at 53 Eastfield Drive and the Sheriff's Department. RRC:hl Proposed 3 Way Stop Sign of Hackamore Rd.docx 2 O RECEIVED January 31, 2016 Rolling Hills Traffic Commission Dear Traffic Commission: FEB 01 2016 City of Rolling Hills By We request that a "3 Way Stop" sign be installed near the stop sign located at Eastfield Drive and Hackamore Road and another "3 Way Stop" sign installed at the pre -stop sign near 53 Eastfield Drive. These 2 signs are necessary because there have been an increasing number of near collisions caused by drivers driving up Eastfield Drive who are unaware of the 3 way intersection at Hackamore Road and Eastfield Drive. This dangerous situation needs a solution before someone is seriously injured. In the compelling interest of public safety, we urge the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission to install these 2 signs. Sincerely, Concerned Residents of Hackamore Road lAt: (1„ vow/" eirr al Rasa, gera INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-A Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 10 FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 1'lele—*/ SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -A1 -MS), (JANKOVICH). REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Tom 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 900 square foot swimming pool and 86 square feet spa 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. cZ ) The applicants also requested a slight modification to the previously approved corral and wall in the front yard. 3. The Planning Commission by a vote 3-0 (Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Smith absent and excused) approved the project. (At the previous meeting all Commissioners provided direction to stasff to bring a Resolution of approval). The Planning Commission found that the project is situated on a very large lot and the development would not cause the lot to be overdeveloped. The existing residence encroaches into the western side setback and the new residence will encroach less than the existing residence. They found that although the lot is large (9.56 acres for development purposes) the lot is steep outside the building pad area, and in order to create a larger building pad away from the side setback, more grading would be required, which would cause more disturbance of the natural terrain. BACKGROUND 4. 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 slopes, and the flag lot shape further constrains the lot. The lot is located south of Crest Road East and south of a shared driveway. 5. ' The property is currently developed with a 3,275 square foot residence, a 591 square foot garage, and a 96 square foot service yard, all of which will be demolished. 6. In July 2015 the Planning Commission approved a lot line adjustment, (and City Council received and filed), that removed the 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. Concurrently, the Planning Commission approved, (and City Council received and filed), 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 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. (Resolution 2015-07). MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 7. With the previously approved stable, the disturbed area was approved at 11.9% of the net lot area. The proposed disturbed area will be 14.3%, 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, ZC NO. 894 0 driveways, yard areas, and recompaction) with a total export of 250 cubic yards from the pool and spa. 8. The new residence is proposed in the same general location as the current residence and will range in height from 14'7" to 17'7" at the highest ridge plus chimneys. 9. The property drains to the south/southeast and the water will be collected in a 360 square foot biofiltration unit that will receive and treat the stormwater from the site and slowly discharge the water into two on -site dissipaters. 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 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). 10. 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 east, 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 within the circular driveway. The applicants also plan to preserve the large Oak Trees inside the island. 11. A 245 square foot Koi Pond Gazebo is proposed on a bridge spanning over the 1,070 square foot Koi Pond. 12. 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 35.3%, 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. 13. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 14,857 square feet or 3.6%, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed will be 33,712 square feet or 8.1 %, (35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions. 14. 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. ZC NO. 894 15. The applicant is also proposing to relocate a portion of the previously approved 3' high wall closer to the front to create a wider corral area to the north of the stable. 16. 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 will be minimal 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. 17. 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 driveway and turnaround access per Fire Department's requirement 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. 18. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 19. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission considers 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. 20. 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. 21. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements, and all other zoning requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines and a new septic tank. 22. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZC NO. 894 e 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. 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. 950 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 3456 sq.ft. 1781 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 15,657 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 0.88% 14,857 sq.ft. w/allowances or 3.6% of 416,381 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 4.39% 33,712 sq.ft. w/allowances or 8.1% of 416,381.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 21.31% 35.3% of 39,800 sq.ft. pad GRADING N/A 2,645 cubic yards of cut and 2,395 cubic yards of fill = 250 cubic Site Plan Review required if ZC NO. 894 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. yards of export DISTURBED AREA 11.88% 13.9% 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 SO.FT. N/A 3,456 sq.ft, 215 sq.ft. loft, , 2,000 sq.ft. corral approved & 550 SO.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 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 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; ZC NO. 894 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. 894 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK () RESOLUTION NO. 2016-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -A1 -MS), (JANKOVICH). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich with respect to real property located at 77 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 69 -A1 -MS) requesting 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. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at their regular meeting on January 19, 2016 and February 16, 2016, and in the field on February 16, 2016. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on January 7th, 2016. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and their agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Neighbors from Rancho Palos Verdes and a neighbor from 73 Crest Road East previewed the plans prior to the public hearing. The agent for 71 Crest Road East attended the field trip. There were no objections to the project. The Planning Commission have reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 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. 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). 77 Crest Road East Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by 999 square feet or more in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan for grading, the new residence, garages, porches, swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, koi pond gazebo, retaining walls, and other miscellaneous accessory structures, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. The project is situated on a very large lot and the development would not cause the lot to be overdeveloped. The existing residence encroaches into the western side setback. However, the project encroaches less than the existing residence. The proposed project is situated away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The project conforms with Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 416,381 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 3.6%, which includes all of the structures, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed, including the future 3,456 square foot stable would be 8.1%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 13.9%, which includes disturbance for the approved stable and corral (Resolution 2015-07). B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The lot is over 9 and a half acres in size and no more than 13.9% is proposed to be disturbed, with the remainder of the lot left in it's natural state. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot, located on much smaller lots. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from the road and all neighbors. 77 Crest Road East 2 8 D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the project will capture all resident and visitor parking on -site with 3 guest parking spaces on the circular driveway and in the 2 attached garages. 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 east, outside of the side setback, and will provide access for the Fire Department in case of an emergency. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement that side yard setbacks be free of structures as 325 square feet of the residence and 3 covered porches 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 it's entirety into the side setback, beyond the residence encroachment. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because 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. The existing residence encroaches into the side yard setback and the requested encroachment is less than the existing. The topography of the lot, specifically the steep slopes, paired with the applicants' desire to minimize grading by utilizing the existing residential pad, create difficulty in remaining outside of the side yard setback. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing graded pad, which encroaches into the setback, and the property's steep slopes, it would be a hardship not to encroach with the proposed residence and covered porches. The existing encroachment cannot be seen or viewed by adjacent residences and there were no concerns voiced by residents either before or during the field visit to the property, or during either of the public hearings. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the 77 Crest Road East 3 II property is located because the existing residence encroaches into the side yard setback and the proposed residence encroaches less. The residence would not affect any neighbor's views and therefore would not affect property values, and would be screened from the street. D. 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. E. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature. The lot is large and supports a stable and corral area. A stable and corral will be constructed to further meet the City's goal to encourage construction of equestrian uses. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 894 a Site Plan Review for a new residence, new garages, new pool/spa/catchment basin, covered porches, koi pond, koi pond gazebo, new driveway, site retaining walls that exceed 3 feet in height; and Variance to encroach with a portion of the residence and covered porches into the side yard setback subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.070 and 17.38.080, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated February 16, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. 77 Crest Road East E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 14,857 square feet or 3.6% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork shall not exceed 33,712 square feet or 8.1%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). H. Grading for this project shall consist of 2,645 cubic yards of cut and 2,395 cubic yards of fill with 250 cubic yards to be exported for the pool and spa. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall not exceed 13.9%. I. The residential building pad shall be 39,800 square feet and will have coverage of 35.3%. J. The new residence may encroach 325 square feet, and 3 covered patios may encroach as follows: two of the covered porches will encroach between 0' to T into the side setback and a third porch, (130 square feet) will encroach in its entirety into the side setback. No basement or "story" may be constructed under the area of encroachment. K. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. L. All utility lines to the residence shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. M. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. N. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be planted to screen the project from 77 Crest Road East the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge like screen but be offset. The height of the trees and shrubs shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the residence. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redevelop, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. O. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. P. The west and south side setback lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. The project's biofiltration unit shall be maintained and cleared by the property owner to ensure it functions as intended at all times. R. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the RHCA. S. A minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permit for waste hauling prior to start of work, and provide the appropriate documentation to the City. T. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. U. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. V. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easements. There shall be no parking along the common driveway with the adjacent 77 Crest Road East 6 properties or blocking of the common driveway. A flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when necessary. W. Prior to construction photographs of the common driveway shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Following construction, the common driveway must be restored, at a minimum, to its pre -construction condition. X. Guest parking spaces shall have pervious material and shall be approved by the Planning Department. Y. Every effort shall be made to retain the 3 large trees located within the landscaped area in the circular driveway. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management and comply with the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. AA. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AB. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. OPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016. ATTEST: ttb 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. 77 Crest Road East STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-05 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH TWO GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, A SWIMMING POOL/SPA, KOI POND, KOI POND GAZEBO, VARIOUS HEIGHTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 5' HIGH RETAINING WALLS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; AND VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A PORTION OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND COVERED PORCHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 77 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -A1 -MS), (JANKOVICH). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices letd HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 77 Crest Road East gar ai Sea, qe4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-B Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR /14/21 u THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING 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, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE AND 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), (THOMAS). REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Thomas submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 475 square foot cabana; Site Plan Review for 1,450 square foot pool deck, higher that 3' retaining walls and grading consisting of 565 cubic yards of dirt, plus additional 180 cubic yards if a stable is constructed in the future; Variances to encroach with a portion (310 sq.ft.) of the raised deck, retaining walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two previously constructed sheds, a portion of a previously constructed trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance and 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. Also proposed is a 632 square foot swimming pool with 100 square foot spa. Although the pool and spa would not require a discretionary permit and could be approved administratively, the grading for the location requires a SPR. 3. The Planning Commission by a vote 3-0 (Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Smith absent and excused) approved the project. (At the previous meeting all Commissioners voted to direct staff to bring a Resolution of approval). During the Planning Commission review process, the applicant revised the project per the Commission's recommendation to lower the ridge height of the cabana (lowered by one foot from 13'10.5" to 12'10") and made other modifications. The Planning Commission found that the size and configuration of the lot as well as the location of the existing house dictate the location of any further improvements on the property. Due to the long driveway necessary for the house located in the rear, the disturbed area and the total lot coverage (structures and hardscape) is large. The Commission found that the miscellaneous, small structures and patio are not detrimental to the overall development of the lot or homes in the vicinity, and although they were concerned with the "as built" sheds in the rear setback, a neighbor submitted a letter not objecting to their location and the RHCA approved the sheds until such time as the property sells. The cabana and pool are proposed to be located in an area of the lot that would not cause extensive grading and are proposed in an area that was partially disturbed previously. A "No further development without Planning Commission's review" and that the sheds are approved until the property sells conditions were put on the property and are included in the resolution. BACKGROUND 4. The subject property, zoned RA -S-1, contains 1.3 acres gross and 44,563 square feet (1.02 acres) of net lot area. The Building Permits indicate that the subject property was originally developed in 1952 with additions approved and constructed in 1985 and in 1999. Extensive interior remodel was done in 1999 as well as in 2011. 5. None of the previous approvals show an approved set aside area for a stable and corral. (Set aside is not required for a remodel.) Pursuant to Section 17.18.020 every lot in the City is required to have a developed stable and corral or set aside area for a future stable and corral and such requirement is triggered when a proposal is submitted for a new residence, addition, accessory structures requiring a CUP, or a pool. The applicants propose a set aside area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot, which requires a Variance. The house is situated in such a way that there is no room for a stable and corral in the rear or side of the house, that would meet the setback and distance requirements. ZC NO. 893 6. The property is developed with a 5,850 square foot residence with 680 square foot garage, 86 square foot entryway, water feature, 766 square foot detached trellis, barbeque, two -100 square foot each sheds and a service yard. The trellis, BBQ and sheds are non -permitted and 251 square foot of the trellis, the BBQ and sheds are located in the rear yard setback. The applicants wish to keep those structures on the property. Most of the garage and approximately 1,060 square feet of the residence is located in the rear yard setback. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS 7. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed 475 square foot cabana, which will be enclosed on three sides and have one side open facing the pool. At the north end of the cabana, due to the lot configuration, an out of grade condition is proposed where the cabana would be 4'out of grade, but not exceeding the average of 2.5' out of grade, which is permitted. The height of the cabana is proposed to be 12'-10" and is buffered with a 4' maximum retaining wall. 8. Section 17.16.210 A(2) of the Zoning Ordinance allows cabanas greater than 200 square feet with a CUP as follows: 2. Cabana, pool house or recreation room providing that the following conditions are met: a. Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet. b. Shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. c. A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink and toilet may be permitted. d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted. 9. The proposed swimming pool will be located on the side of the house and have an infinity edge with 66 square foot water overflow catchment basin, with a not to exceed 3.5' high wall behind it. The pool equipment area and a gas fireplace are proposed to be located in the rear setback, which require a Variance. 10. A new 1,450 square foot pool deck is proposed, of which 650 square feet would be between 6" and 4 feet above grade, and of that 310 square feet would be located in the rear setback, which requires a Variance. The area underneath the raised deck will be filled and straddled by up to 4' high retaining wall, which will extend along the deck and the pool pad, and connect to the cabana. The retaining wall will range in height from a curb to 4', which on the average will be 2.5'. 11. A 766 square foot detached trellis was constructed without permits by other than the current owners, of which 251 square feet is located in the rear setback. Also in the rear setback are located two, 100 -square feet each sheds, 21 square foot BBQ and a ZC NO. 893 service yard, which were also not permitted. The applicants would like to retain these structures on the lot and have therefore applied for a Variance. The applicant is required to obtain building permits for the BBQ and the walls for the service yard. 12. A Variance is requested to allow a 1,000 square foot set aside area for a stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot. As stated earlier, the location and configuration of the existing residence is such that there is no room to set aside an area for a stable and corral in the rear or side of the residence and meet the setbacks and distance requirements. 13. Grading for this project will consist of 320 cubic yards of cut, including 220 cubic yards from excavation of the pool; and 245 cubic yards of fill, for a total of 565 cubic yards of dirt, of which 75 will be exported from the pool excavation and 100 cubic yards will be for overexcavation and recompaction. 180 cubic yards of dirt will be required for the future stable and corral area, when constructed. The grading will result in 2:1 slopes behind the pool and cabana, with a small area north of the cabana being 3:1 slopes. Currently the disturbed area of the lot is 54.5%, which is legal non -conforming; (max. permitted is 40%); and with the proposed grading for the cabana, pool and future stable and corral, the disturbance is proposed to be 68.3% of the net lot area, which requires a Variance. Should the stable and corral be developed, the slope would result in 3:1 gradient. However, the project does not currently qualify for reduction in disturbance, as it exceeds the threshold for reduction. 14. With the proposed structures and future stable, the structural coverage on the net lot would be 9,506 square feet or 21.3%; which exceeds the maximum permitted 20%. However, pursuant to Section 17.16.070 of the Zoning Ordinance, deductions of up to 800 sq.ft. for detached miscellaneous structures (not in setbacks) are allowed. Therefore, with the deductions of portion of the trellis and water feature, the structural net lot coverage would be 8,893 square feet or 19.96%. 15. The total lot coverage (structures and hardscape) would be 19,263 square feet or 43.2% of the net lot area, which requires a Variance. Currently the total lot coverage is 36.02%, which exceeds the maximum permitted of 35%. 16. The residential building pad will be 21,660 square feet, and the coverage on the pad would be 8,433 square feet or 39%; whereas currently the coverage is 37.5%, which exceeds the 30% coverage guideline. A second building pad will be created at the time a stable and corral are constructed. 17. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for granting the CUP and Site Plan Review, the applicants' representative state in part that the proposed cabana will be compatible with the uses on other properties, it meets all of the City's development standards and will be built per building codes and will not have an impact on traffic or pedestrian circulation. The revised cabana will appear less massive and will be lowered. ZC NO. 893 The Site Plan Review is required for the structures, walls and grading. The applicants' representative states that the house is in the rear setback and with the long driveway there isn't other area on the lot to place the proposed improvements. The pool and most of the deck are not in setbacks, and therefore meet all of the City's requirements. The disturbance and total coverage on the lot already exceed the maximum permitted, therefore any improvements would trigger a variance. The previous owners constructed the trellis and other small structures, and the current owner demolished one of the trellises already. The cabana and pool are proposed to be located in an area of the lot that would not cause extensive grading and are proposed in an area that was partially disturbed previously. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for granting of the Variances, the applicant's representative state in part that the current conditions on the property prevent any other improvements without having to apply for a Variance for setback encroachment or for front yard encroachment. Any development in the front yard would be visible from Eastfield Drive, which the applicants are trying to avoid. The deck and wall in the rear setback would follow the line of the existing house in the rear setback and not be more intrusive, as the deck will remain as open space. She states that by locating the pool equipment in the rear setback, it makes it most distant to any neighbors. Previous owners constructed the trellis, sheds and BBQ and the current owner would like to keep those structures and legalize them and obtain building permits. They are located in the most logical place on the property for distance from neighbors and functionality. As for the request for Variance for disturbance and total lot coverage, she states that the lot in its existing condition exceeds these development standards and that any improvement, including a stable, which is required by the City to be included in the calculations, whether proposed to be constructed or not, would trigger exceedance of disturbance and total lot coverage. The slopes for the future stable, if constructed, would result in a 3:1 grade and blend into the existing terrain; and there will be a small area of the resulting slope from grading for the cabana that would also be at 3:1 grade. Therefore, to the maximum extent practicable the grading would not result in steep slopes. As for the stable and corral set aside located in the front yard, she states that due to the location and configuration of the existing residence, there is no other area on the lot to locate the set aside. 18. RHCA review and approval of the project will be required. 19. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. 20. In reviewing a CUP the Planning Commission and City Council must find that the use is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. When reviewing a development application for a Site Plan Review the Planning CC mmission and City Council should consider ZC NO. 893 s-1 whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; and for Variances if there are extraordinary circumstances and hardships that warrant the granting of the variances. The criteria for making findings are listed below. ZONING CASE NO. 893 SITE PLAN REVIEW & VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE & miscl. improvements CABANA, POOL, DECK, GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, & miscl. improvements Front: 50 ft. from rd. easmnt. line Side: 20 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR -new structures, grading, deck and walls; Variance - encroachment into setbacks, to exceed max. permitted disturbance & total lot coverage; and set aside for future stable & corral in the front yard; CUP- cabana Residence Garages Cabana Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable Entry- Service yard Trellis BBQ Sheds Water ftr. Fireplace 5850 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 86 sq.ft. 90 sq.ft. 766 sq.ft. 21 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. Residence Garages Cabana Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable -future Entry Service yard Trellis BBQ Sheds Water ftr. Fireplace 5850 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 475 sq.ft. 732 sq.ft. 48 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 86 sq.ft. 90 sq.ft 766 sq.ft 21 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 98 sq.ft. 10 sq.ft. TOTAL 7,725 sq.ft. TOTAL 9,506 sq. ft. GRADING N/A Total of 565 cy of cut and fill, incl. 140 cy excavation for pool, 75 cy to be exported. 180 cy total for future stable. 100 cy over excavation and compaction Site Plan Review required. Must be balanced on -site, except for excavated material STRUCTURAL LOT 16.11%; with deductions 19.96% or 8,893 of 44,563 s.f. net lot area; w/allowances COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 36.02% w/allowances 43.2% or 19,263 sq.ft. of 44,563 sq.ft. net lot area; with allowances (35%.maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 19,160 sq.ft. pad w/37.5% coverage 21,480 sq.ft. pad w/ 8,433 sq.ft. or 39% coverage 450.sq.ft pad w/100% coverage (30% maximum -guideline) Residential Stable -future DISTURBED AREA 54.5% previously disturbed 68.3% proposed - Variance requested (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded ZC NO. 893 area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SO.FT. N/A Future 450 sq.ft. and corral in front yard & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL} STABLE ACCESS N/A Future ROADWAY ACCFSS Existing driveway Existing driveway VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review 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 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 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 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: ZC NO. 893 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 charmels 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 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 uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. ZC NO. 893 November 19, 2015 To Rolling Hills City and Rolling Hills Community Association: I am writing to let you know that the two sheds between myself and my neighbors, Tom and Debi Thomas at 66 Eastfield Dr., are not in any way bothersome to us. We have no opposition to leaving the sheds in their current location. Sincerely, Mrs. Makineni 2 Open Brand Rd. 310-377-3208 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK o RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING 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, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT AND 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 AT 66 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 107-EF), (THOMAS). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Tom and Debi Thomas with respect to real property located at 66 Eastfield, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 475 square foot cabana; Site Plan Review for the cabana, for 1,450 square foot pool deck, for higher that 3' in height retaining walls and grading consisting of a total of 565 cubic yards of dirt, plus additional 180 cubic yards if a stable is constructed in the future; Variances to encroach with a portion (310 sq.ft.) of the raised deck, retaining walls, pool equipment area and fireplace into the rear yard setback; to retain two previously constructed sheds, a portion of a trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot with 68.3% (maximum allowed is 40%); to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot with 43.2% (maximum allowed is 35%), and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot. Also proposed is a 632 square foot swimming pool with 100 square foot spa. Although the pool and spa would not require a discretionary permit and could be approved administratively, the grading for the location requires a Site Plan Review. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on November 17, 2015, December 15, 2015, and February 16, 2016 at regular Planning Commission meetings, and in the field also on December 15, 2015. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the public hearings. No neighbors reviewed the plans before the meetings or attended the site visit. The Rolling Hills Community Association received a letter from the adjacent neighbor advising they have no objection to the applicant's Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield retaining the sheds in the rear easement and the RHCA Board granted the applicants a license agreement to retain the sheds in the easement until such time as the property sells. Section 3. The subject property, zoned RA -S-1, contains 1.3 acres gross and 44,563 square feet (1.02 acres) of net lot area. The property is developed with a 5,850 square foot residence with 680 square foot garage, 86 square foot entryway, water feature, 766 square foot detached trellis, barbeque, two -100 square foot each sheds and a service yard. The trellis, BBQ and sheds are non -permitted and 251 square foot of the trellis, the BBQ and sheds are located in the rear yard setback. The applicants wish to keep those structures on the property and are a part of this Resolution. Most of the garage and approximately 1,060 square feet of the residence is located in the rear yard setback, and are legal non -conforming. Section 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Section 5. A Site Plan Review is required subject to Section 17.46.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, in that the proposed cabana, raised deck, and retaining walls are a structural addition. Further, the grading for these new structures require Site Plan Review. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for the cabana, deck, walls, and grading, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compliant with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance except as approved herein a Variance, and is compatible with the General Plan and surrounding uses because the proposed project is consistent with goals and policies that require low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The cabana, pool, walls, and deck construction will be situated to ensure it is not obtrusive to neighbors, will be screened from view, and the pool equipment is located in an area that will not be intrusive. The elevated out -of -grade condition and "bulk" of the new deck will be mitigated, by landscaping and retaining walls and separated by a 4' walkway. To address Planning Commissioner's concerns, the entire project was "dropped down" and softened with landscaping. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot because the required grading has been carefully considered, and the out -of -grade condition is being softened with walls and landscaping. The construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with vegetation and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 2 ja C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of homes in the surrounding RA -S-1 similarly zoned neighborhood. The proposed project entails construction of a cabana, pool, raised deck and retaining walls for the purpose of enhancing and facilitating outdoor living on the site, a common residential amenity enjoyed by property owners throughout the City. D. The development plan generally follows natural contours of the site to the maximum extent practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot, subject to concurrent approval of Variances and a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 6 and 7 of this resolution. E. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Minimal grading is proposed and therefore existing drainage channels are not anticipated to be impacted. The project construction will not be located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because no change is proposed to the existing driveway, which is in compliance with applicable requirements. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or zone. In proposing to encroach with 310 square feet of raised deck, the retaining walls, pool equipment, and fireplace into the rear yard setback, and also to retain 2 sheds, a portion of the trellis and barbecue in the rear yard setback, Variances are required to grant relief from the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 17.12.190 (setback definitions requiring that setbacks be free of structures) and 17.16.150 (Structures and driveways permitted in setbacks where the height of the proposed deck -greater than 12" above grade, and supporting retaining wall greater than 3', and 17.16.070 (maximum allowed lot coverage and disturbance) in which case the proposed total lot coverage and disturbance area would exceed the allowed amounts with an increases from 36.02% to 43.2% where 35% maximum is allowed for total lot coverage, and an increase from 54.5% to 68.3% where 40% maximum total lot coverage is allowed. Variance from Section 17.16.110 relating to the location of the future stable and corral in the front yard setback is required. With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as follows: Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 3 @ Regarding requested variance from Zoning Ordinance Sections 17.16.150, and 17.16.070 relating to the encroachment of the structures in the rear yard setback and the height of the deck and projection into the setback for the proposed miscellaneous structures: the current residence is legal non -conforming, with a large portion of the residence including most of the garage being located in the rear yard setback creating a constraint on where outdoor livable area adjacent to the residence can be located. Previously constructed existing structures in the rear yard setback further constrain the lot and as a part of this Resolution, these structures will be legalized. The proposed structures common to residences in Rolling Hills are a pool, outdoor deck, and cabana, and this approval permits the applicants to enjoy the same amenities. Encroachment of the raised deck, existing trellis, and pool equipment into the rear yard setback would enable the property owners to construct a reasonably sized deck designed for outdoor living. The placement of the pool equipment in the rear yard setback keeps it away from all neighbors and allows for better screening. Retaining the two sheds has received approval from the RHCA. Regarding the requested variance from Section 17.16.070 for total lot coverage and disturbance limits, the project does not meet the total lot coverage requirement of 35% and is proposed at 43.2%, which is an increase from the existing 36.0% which is legal non -conforming. The proposed structures increases disturbance area to 68.34%, including the future stable and corral which has a slope of 3:1 and the pool pad slopes will be 2:1. The lot coverage and disturbance exceedance is due to the fact that with the house located in the rear of the lot there is a long and wide existing driveway leading to the residence, an area of which is calculated towards the total lot coverage. To accommodate the large driveway and the house in the rear, the lot was previously graded more than the maximum permitted of 40%; therefore any structural improvements cause those numbers to exceed the maximum permitted. Regarding the Variance from Section 17.16.110, relating to the location of the future stable and corral in the front yard setback, the existing residence is in the rear of the property leaving very few options other than to propose the stable and the corral in the front yard setback. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of their rear yard with a sizeable deck, pool, and cabana to accommodate outdoor recreational use, including an cabana and pool, which currently can not be enjoyed due to the existing residence being so far towards the rear of the lot. The proposed location of the entire project - deck, cabana, and pool are the least visually intrusive to the property and its neighbors. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 4 G zone in which the property is located in that the degree of deviation from the allowed amount of encroachment (310 square feet of the raised deck), a portion of the trellis, and the pool equipment is relatively minor. Further, the proposed patio would not be visible from the adjoining street or private properties and therefore is not expected to result in any visual or privacy impacts. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed deck, cabana, and pool construction will be orderly, attractive, legalizes non -conforming uses on the property, and will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject proposed structures are in the rear of the property and will not impact the proposed future stable and corral area and the proposed deck, cabana, and pool will not impact use of the existing structures. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The property is located above the adjacent property to rear and there is large open space between any structures on subject property to the adjacent property. F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 7. Section 17.16.210(A)(2) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a cabana under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the cabana would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, meets all the applicable development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and no deviations from the development standards are requested. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a cabana will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because it complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community, and will be screened from neighbors' view. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 5 io D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 475 square foot size of the cabana does not exceed the maximum permitted under the Municipal Code and it does not encroach into any setback areas and is not located in the front. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because the proposed project meets all of the development standards of the Zoning Regulations and has a proposed stable, corral and access thereto. The construction of the project and the structure will not be obtrusive to neighbors. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review, Variances, and Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 893 for new cabana, raised deck, pool, pool equipment, fireplace, and walls; to encroach with a portion (310 square feet) of the raised deck, retaining walls, pool equipment area, and fireplace into the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and disturbance of the lot; and to retain and legalize two previously constructed sheds, a portion of a trellis, and barbecue in the rear yard setback, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan, Variances, and Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated February 10, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 6 la The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans, including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and including conformance with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. D. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property or this project, which would constitute additional grading, height or any structural development including a trellis or other similar above ground structure shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. E. Grading for this project shall not exceed 320 cubic yards of cut, including 220 cubic yards from excavation of the pool; and 245 cubic yards of fill, for a total of 565 cubic yards of dirt, of which 75 will be exported from the pool excavation and 100 cubic yards, will be for overexcavation and recompaction. 180 cubic yards of dirt will be required for the future stable and corral area, when constructed. The grading will result in 2:1 slopes behind the pool and cabana. Some of the grading for the future stable shows the resulting slopes at 3:1. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,893 square feet, or 19.96%. Total lot coverage shall not exceed 43.2% or 19,263 square feet. Building Pad coverage on the 21,660 square foot residential pad shall not exceed 8,433 square feet or 39% coverage. Building pad coverage for the future stable will not exceed 450 square feet with 45% coverage. G. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 68.3% (of net lot area), which includes the future stable and corral area. H. The future set -aside area for the stable and corral area of 1,000 square feet, shall be retained on the property at all times. I. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the cabana, pool and decking. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 7 i) J. There shall be no sleeping quarters and temporary occupancy in the cabana. The cabana shall not exceed 475 square feet. All conditions of Section 17.16.210 A. (2) for a cabana shall apply. K. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. L. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. M. The "as built" miscellaneous structures including 2 sheds, the trellis, fire place and barbecue that are in the rear yard setback shall be made legal and building permit obtained. Further, the approval of the two sheds located in the rear setback shall expire upon the sale of the property. N. The side and rear setback lines in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. Construction fence may be required. O. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention= practices,- county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. P. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easements, but not to obstruct neighboring driveways. During construction, to maximum extend feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. Q. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so . as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management and comply with the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system, should one be required for the cabana. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield S. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City. T. All graded areas shall be landscaped. In addition, the cabana and swimming pool shall be screened from the neighbors and a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redevelop, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow into a hedge but be offset and shall not exceed the ridgeline of the cabana. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the RHCA. V. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: httpV/www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIR E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. W. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. All utility lines to the cabana shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030. X. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. Y. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfeld 9 ® PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF MARCH 2016. B £ D CHELF, CHAIR AN ATTEST: Cad LCJ \PLC) 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. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW CABANA, GRADING, ABOVE GRADE DECK, RETAINING 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, PORTION OF TRELLIS AND BARBEQUE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM - PERMITTED DISTURBANCE -OF THE LOTAND 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 AT 66 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 107-EF), (THOMAS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Kirkpatrick and Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Reso. 2016-06 66 Eastfield eNP.1auPJ HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 11 Agenda Item No: 5-C(1) Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Heidi Luce, City Clerk SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A -11 Saddleback Road DATE: April 11, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Councilmember Pieper should recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-C(1) Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (WARREN). REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report, or provide other direction to staff. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 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 and 10,620 cubic yards of grading plus over -excavation and compaction; and Variances to locate the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and for lot disturbance in Zoning Case No. 896. 3. The Planning Commission by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Smith absent and excused) approved the lot line adjustment finding that all criteria pursuant to State Law for a lot line adjustment are met and no illegal conditions will result. The Planning Commission also found that one lot would be more compatible with the neighborhood than the existing two lots. BACKGROUND 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. There is an Edison Co. easement across lot #2 and a designation in the rear of the lot as being restricted use area. 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. The attached garage was less than 20' 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 will 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 is contingent on 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 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 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. ZC NO. 896-A (2- RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-02, (WARREN). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Candice Warren with respect to real property located at 11 Saddleback Rod, (APN: 7569-004-022) and the vacant property south thereof (APN: 7569-004-023) requesting to merge the two lots into one lot, which will result in a 3.25 acres gross lot, and is attached hereto as Attachment A and made a part thereof. Concurrently Ms. Warren filed an application in Zoning Case No. 896 for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to construct a stable that would be located in the front yard area of the resulting lot, dressage arena a portion of which would be located in the front yard setback, a new single family residence, swimming pool and other accessory structures. Section 2. California Government Code Subsection 66412(d) authorizes lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: (A) The lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; (B) A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; (C) The lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and (D) The lot line adjustment is approved by the City. The City may impose conditions on the Lot Line Adjustment in order to make the lot conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment or to facilitate the relocation of existing infrastructure or easements. Section 3. The lots are located in the RAS-1 zoning district. The resulting lot will be in compliance with the City of Rolling Hills size lot requirements. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application to merge the lots on December 15, 2015, January 19, 2016, and at a field trip on January 19, 2016. Two residents testified in favor of the project. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 exemption provided by Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 6. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application and finds as follows: Reso. 2016-07 ZC No. 896-A 1 A. Section 16.16.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(A) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in any subdivision in the RA -S-1 Zone shall have a net area of not less than forty three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet, (1.0 acre). The proposed lot line adjustment will result in one parcel having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net as calculated by the City for development purposes. Both lots are currently greater than the required one -acre net. The net lot area is measured by taking the entire lot area and deducting (a) the entire area within a recorded roadway easement plus the area within ten feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the roadway easement; (b) the ten foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to the property lines; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or parcel of land and (d) the access strip portion of a flag lot. B. Section 16.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(B)(3) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance require that in all cases where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The lots front along Saddleback Road on all but one side and curve with the direction of the road. The Planning Commission finds that the existing condition will remain, including the existing driveway, and therefore not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Section 16.20.230 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance requires that easements, the width of which are to be determined by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), be dedicated for bridle trail and utility purposes over the strips and portions of land within and abutting upon the property lines and will be recorded concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment. D. Chapter 16.48 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance provides procedures for processing of certificates of compliance, which is a document that acknowledges that subject parcels are considered by the City to be legal lots of record. City records indicate that both parcels were created legally in 1977 by Parcel Map No. 31906. E. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review or any other Ordinance or Code to any future development of the lot, including but not be limited to further study of soils, geology, hydrology, grading and other requirements. Section 7. In accordance with the foregoing findings, a Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No 896-A as indicated on the map stamp dated December 4, 2015, and on file in the Planning Department is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The Lot Line Adjustment approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. Reso. 2016-07 ZC No. 896-A 2 �% B. There shall be easements along the adjusted lot line, as required by the Rolling Hills Community Association. The maps and legal descriptions showing the new property easement lines shall be recorded. C. The lot line adjustment approval shall not in any way constitute any representation that the adjusted lot can be developed even if in compliance with current zoning and building ordinance standards. No development shall occur on the property without first complying with all applicable City Building and Zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations. D. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to the lot at such time as an application is made for development. E. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall not be issued until a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment, and including the required easements and trails, if any, as specified in Paragraph B of Section 7 are submitted to, and approved by the City. Upon the City's approval of the legal descriptions of the new adjusted lines a Certificate of Compliance shall be issued by the City, shall be recorded by the property owner in the offices of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and evidence of the recordation shall be returned to the City. F. The applicant shall record the deed of the property effectuating the transfer concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment and shall submit proof of such recordation to the City of Rolling Hills. G. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Resolution or the Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effective. PASSED, : P ND J DOPTED ON THE 15th DAY OF MARCH 2016. B dAD ELF, CHAIRM N HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-07 ZC No. 896-A 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-07 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF TWO LOTS AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD (APN: 7569-004-022) AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH THEREOF (APN: 7569-004-023) TO CREATE ONE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 896-A, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015- 02, (WARREN). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices chteth 4,(t HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-07 ZC No. 896-A 4 Agenda Item No: 5-C(2) Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Heidi Luce, City Clerk SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A -11 Saddleback Road DATE: April 11, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Councilmember Pieper should recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 5-C(2) Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 060 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN) REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The applicant, Candice Warren, requested 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, a portion of which will be located in front of the leading edge of the residence. A curb wall to up to not to exceed 5' high retaining wall will flank the front and up to half of the sides of the arena. The project requires grading of 5,310 cubic yards of cut and 5,310 cubic yards of fill to be balanced on site, and 13,080 cubic yards of excavation and re -compaction. With the proposed grading the disturbed area of the lot will be 83%. (44.6% disturbance of the lot for the riding arena). In conjunction with the proposed development the applicant requested 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 acres net in size, as calculated by the City for development purposes, (Zoning Case No. 896-A) 3. During the Planning Commission proceedings the applicant revised the project to remove one variance, to accommodate pervious access to the stable and made other changes per Planning Commission's recommendations. 4. The Planning Commission by a vote of 3-1-1 approved the project. (Commissioner Smith absent and Commissioner Gray voting against the project). (At a prior meeting, Commissioner Smith voted to direct staff to bring a resolution of approval). The Commission found that the proposal promotes the equestrian nature of the City and the development of a riding arena and a stable is desirable. While disturbance on this project is high, the dressage arena accounts for a large part of the disturbance, (37% of the 83% of total disturbance). The Commission further found that the applicant made good effort to grade so that several areas will result in 3:1 slopes; that the lot is constrained due to the long roadway easement along Saddleback Road (on 3 sides); that the remaining of the development is compatible with the neighborhood; that the owners will make use of an existing legal non -conforming structure for the stable; that the project will result in an equestrian like development which is encouraged by the City and that as currently exists another home could be built on the small lot and the proposed development is more desirous than another residence, which would also require large quantities of grading. BACKGROUND 5. The property is zoned RAS-1 and with the lot merger will contain 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 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. 6. 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 ZC NO. 896 recorded restricted use area over an approximately 1/4 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 applicants received a verbal confirmation from Edison Co. that they would allow grading and construction of the arena over their easement and from the LA County that as long as no structure is proposed in the restricted use area they will be able to grade for the arena. A condition of approval has been included in the resolution that the applicant submit documented proof from both entities showing their permission. 7. 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 setback. A new 1,165 square foot 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): 8. 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. 9. The SPR is required for the structures, for walls over 3' in height and grading for the project. The residence is proposed to be 4,745 square feet with a 659 square foot garage at a maximum height of 17'. The grading will consist of 5,310 cubic yards cut and 5,310 cubic yards fill plus 13,080 cubic yards of dirt for excavation and re - compaction, for a total of dirt movement of 23,700 cubic yards. For the arena alone the grading will entail 5,100 cubic yards cut and 955 cubic yards fill with 1,890 cubic yards of over -excavation and the same amount of compaction. The cut, of up to 14.5' will be in the area of the proposed arena; and the fill of up to 11' will be in the area of the gardens south west of the residence and between the pool area and the horse pathway that will connect the arena to the stable and will be located behind the residential building pad. Some fill will be needed for the stable addition and in the corrals. Most of the resulting slopes will have 2:1 gradient. There are few areas where the slope will result in 3:1 gradient to soften the topography. The ancillary outdoor structures, such as the trellises, outdoor kitchen, fireplace, decking and patio do not require discretionary review by the Planning Commission. ZC NO. 896 and 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 triggers SPR. 10. A not to exceed 5' retaining wall along the front of the arena and along approximately 100' -120 ' along the two sides of the arena, ranging in height from a curb to 5' is proposed. As the property slopes upwards from the arena to the road, the wall will not be visible from the front of the property. A drainage swale is proposed along the remaining edge of the arena. A 2.5' to 3.5' high retaining wall along the horse access from the stable to the dressage arena is necessary to accommodate the. grade differential. A not to exceed 3.5' high seating wall is proposed along the backside of the swimming pool. 11. Homes/lots in vicinity of subject site, in square feet: Address Lot Size (excl. road) House size 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 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 AVERAGE 97,637 4,447 11 Saddleback 111,480 (incl. restricted area) 4,745 Proposed NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, (CUP): 12. 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 a center isle and a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral. A portion of the existing detached garage will be demolished and 900 square feet of the garage is proposed to be converted to the stable and more footage added for a total of 3,040 square foot stable. 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. Proposed is 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 ZC NO. 896 loft of 625 square feet in area, runs along the length of the building and will be used for agricultural storage. The highest ridge of the stable is proposed to be 19.5' to finished floor. 13. A CUP is also required for the 13,860 square foot dressage arena, (70' by 198'), which is proposed to be located on what is now Lot 2. A portion of the arena will be located in front of the leading edge of the residence. A combination of wall and swale will surround the arena. (For grading quantities and wall see items #9 and #10 above). 14. The stable will be located 35 feet' 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. 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 paved Entire driveway access will be removed and replaced with decomposed granite. Stable, corral, riding ring not to be located on slopes greater than 4:1 Complies. Stable and corral area relatively flat; access requires grading. Stable, corral, riding ring - not in front yard; min. 35 ' from side prop line; may be located up to 25' in rear setback. 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 Meets requirements (#14 above) Stable building to be designed for rural and agricultural uses only, but may include storage for vehicles, household items & other storage First story designed for equestrian uses; Household storage in loft. 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; Stable minimum of 60% shall be maintained for agricultural uses Agricultural spaces, including loft, feed & center isle -91.5% Stable maximum of 40% not to exceed 800 s.f. may be maintained for a tack room Tack use area - 8.5% ZC NO. 896 REQUIREMENTS .: PROPOSED use Stable tack area may have sanitary and kitchen amenities Proposed: bathroom & kitchenette Stable tack area may have glazed openings Windows proposed in tack area. (condition of approval) Stable agricultural space entry doors to be min. 4'wide & 8' high; appearance of a stable door Entry doors heights at entrance to stalls -4' wide; to feed room 8' - wide & min 8' high (Condition of approval) Stable loft permitted Loft proposed for agricultural storage Stable loft plate height may not exceed 7' The total height of the structure at its highest peak is proposed to be 19.5' (Loft plate height -7', per condition of approval.) Stable exterior area may not be paved Dirt or D.G. (condition of approval) Corral minimum 550 sf.; fenced and contiguous to stable. (Planning Commission may determine the size of a corral) Proposed 1,685 sq. ft. fenced corral. Not paved access to the arena is proposed from the main driveway; from the stable and from Saddleback Road. Stable access slope not to exceed 25% Existing, approx. 10% access 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 ZC NO. 896 VARIANCES: 16. Per the zoning ordinance, the maximum permitted disturbance of a lot is 40%. The project calls for 81,600 square feet of disturbance of the net lot area, (after LLAdj); or 83%, which requires a variance. Currently the disturbed area (counting both lots) is at 47.0%, mostly on the developed lot. The disturbed area for the proposed dressage arena would be 30,200 square feet, which accounts for 44.6% of the total 81,600 square feet of the disturbed area and 37% 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, triggering a variance. Due to the configuration of the lot, along a very long curve of Saddleback, the front yard is also very long. The applicant would like to utilize the already existing structure (garage) as well as the mostly flat portion of the area of the detached garage to construct the stable and corral. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 18. 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 will remove the driveway that leads to the stable including the area in front of the garage and replace with decomposed granite for equestrian uses. A D.G path is proposed to access the riding arena from the main driveway for delivery of sand and other materials for the maintenance of the arena. 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". An existing pedestrian/equestrian path exists from Saddleback that leads across Lot 2 and this will remain for same uses. 19. As stated earlier the disturbance of the lot is proposed to be 81,600 square feet or 83% of the net lot area of the lots (after the merger). 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). The dressage arena and corral are not counted towards structural or total lot coverage. 21. Proposed are three building pads on the property. The residential building pad will be 17,700 square feet and will have overage of 34.2%. ZC NO. 896 O 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 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 is a requirement of this application that all utility lines to the residence and stable be placed underground and that the applicant comply with all other Municipal Code requirements such as, but not be limited to: the lighting ordinance, roofing material, enclosure of the pool, screening of the pool equipment area, landscaping and low water efficiency ordinance, low impact development ordinance for storm water management on hillside properties (for single family residence), that the applicants provide documentation allowing them to grade in the Edison Co. easement and the restrictive use area. 24. When reviewing this development application, the City considers 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. 25. 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 now the second lot. 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. ZC NO. 896 26. 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. Zoning Case No. 896 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE & DETACHED GARAGE ON DEVELOPED LOT (LOT 111) 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 LOT 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 33.2 % of 7,270 sq.ft. pad BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) Stable GRADING 5,310 cy cut and 5.310 cy fill; plus approx. 13,080 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% 81,600 sq.ft. or 83% (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. ZC NO. 896 ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing from Saddleback Rd. VIEWS N/A Planning Commission condition PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission condition 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. ZC NO. 896 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 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; 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. 896 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK () RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS, TRELLISES AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN). THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Ms. Candice Warren, to request 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, convert an existing detached garage to a 2,415 square foot stable and add a 625 square foot loft, 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, 1,060 square feet of additional paving, a not to exceed 3.5' high seating wall along the pool decking, and 13,860 square foot, (70' by 198'), dressage arena, a portion of which would be located in the front yard area of the lot, with not to exceed 5' high retaining wall along the front portion of the arena and not to exceed 4' high retaining wall along a path leading from the stable to the arena above the pool area. Grading for this project is proposed to be 23,700 cubic yards of dirt total to be balanced on site which includes overexcavation and recompaction. With the proposed grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 83%. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at their regular meeting on December 15, 2015 January 19, 2016, and March 15, 2016, and in the field on January 19, 2016. Neighbors within 1,000 - foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on December 3, 2015 and March 3, 2016. The applicants and their agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicants and their agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. Three residents visited the site during the noticed field trip on January 19, 2016. Commissioners and these residents expressed concern about the driveway access to the stable being primarily concrete, the access to the dressage arena coming off Reso. 2016-08 1 11 Saddleback Rd. 621 of Saddleback Road, and the dressage arena encroaching into the front setback. The applicant's responded with a revised plan to address all of these concerns. The driveway to the stable is now being proposed as all decomposed granite, access to the dressage arena has been relocated to be accessed from the primary driveway, and the dressage arena has been "pushed back" on the lot and is no longer encroaching into the front yard setback. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and with the lot merger will contain 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 and add a loft. Lot #2 is vacant. 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 net. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is 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. Section 5. Section 17.18.040E of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable over 200 square feet and riding arena with a Conditional Use Permit provided the uses are not located in the front yard or in any setbacks. Portions of both, the stable and dressage arena are proposed to be located in the front yard area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Conditionally permitted uses are not outright permitted by the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. The Commission must consider applications for conditional use permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve a conditional use which will not jeopardize, adversely affect, endanger or to otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare or be materially detrimental to the property of other persons located in the vicinity of such use. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of the existing garage to a stable and for the dressage arena would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the uses are consistent with similar uses in the community, and except for their location, meetall the applicable code development standards for a stable and arena, and the area is located in Reso. 2016-08 11 Saddleback Rd. 2 an area on the property that is adequately sized to accommodate such uses. The proposed uses are appropriately located in that they will be sufficiently separated from nearby structures used for habitation or containing sleeping quarters. The development would be constructed in furtherance of the General Plan goal of promoting and encouraging equestrian uses. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent structures have been considered, and the project will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed stable orientation is not towards neighbors and its general location is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so as to not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable is to be located next to the corral and a path designated for equestrian uses that runs from the stable/corral to the proposed dressage arena and is separate from the other outdoor living areas on the property. The dressage arena would be located in an area of the lot that is not in proximity to any residents and will not be visible from the road. D. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the stable and dressage arena complies with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property an over -built look, and areas will remain open and unobstructed. The lot is 2.25 acres net in size and is sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed uses. E. The proposed conditional use, other than being proposed in the front yard area, complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district and requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections 17.18.090 and 17.18.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by not more than 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. The grading for the ancillary outdoor structures (swimming pool, trellises, outdoor kitchen, fireplace, decking, and patio) require Site Plan Review, but the actual structures themselves do not. With respect to the Site Plan grading and the proposed structures the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: Reso. 2016-08 11 Saddleback Rd. A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks to provide buffers between residential uses. Although the disturbed area exceeds the maximum permitted amount of 40%, a large portion of it is for the proposed 13,860 square foot dressage arena (which requires a Conditional Use Permit). The dressage arena will be screened from view from Saddleback Road by retaining walls that are depressed and will not be seen from the road. The dressage arena promotes the rural, equestrian aesthetic of Rolling Hills. The existing paved driveway leading to the stable will be removed and replaced with decomposed granite, which also promotes a feeling of open space. None of the structures are in setbacks. The project conforms with Zoning Code lot coverage requirements, except for disturbance. The net lot area of the lot is 96,358 square feet. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 9.1%, which includes all of the structures, with allowance for permitted deductions, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed, including the stable would be 19.7%, (35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to increase from 46.95% which already exceeds the maximum permitted of 40% and is legal nonconforming, to 83% due in large part to the dressage arena. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed largely on an existing building pad of the currently developed lot, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The lot is 2.25 acres net in size and will feature a dressage arena, and a path for horses. The proposed 4,745 square foot home is only 1,722 square feet larger than the existing home that will be largely retained and remodeled as part of this project. A portion of the existing garage, which will be converted to a stable, is being retained as well. The dressage arena will be developed on the currently vacant lot and will remain open space. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot, located on much smaller lots. Portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from the road and all neighbors. The residences on neighboring properties average to 4,447 square feet. The proposed residence is 4,745 that bring it in -line with homes nearby. Reso. 2016-08 11 Saddleback Rd. D. The development plan will introduce additional landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the applicants will continue to utilize the existing driveway to the residence and the stable, and the dressage arena will be accessed from the main driveway for heavier vehicles ingress/egress. The stable access will be entirely decomposed granite. There is a new private path proposed leading from the stable and corral behind the residential and pool pad directly to the dressage arena and is all contained on the property. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act 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. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant seeks a variance from the requirement 17.18.060A.2. that stables not be located in the front yard, and from 17.16.070B. that disturbance be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The existing garage in the front yard is being converted into a stable. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because Saddleback Road wraps around the property and constrains the lot with large roadway easement. The topography of the lot, specifically the steep slopes on the western portion of the lot further confine where development can be located. The existing garage is located in the front yard and the applicant proposes to utilize the existing structure by converting it into a stable. The disturbance is already legal nonconforming and is proposed to increase to 83% to accommodate the proposed dressage arena. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because Saddleback Road wraps around the property and the large roadway easement substantially reduces the net lot area for development. The residential building pad and the existing garage pad, to be converted to a stable and corral pad are largely developed already, and there are no other options for locating structures including the stable, but where the existing structures are Reso. 2016-08 11 Saddleback Rd. o located. The existing garage is not easily seen from the road, and the stable will step down to the corral area and that portion is screened from view and compatible with the slope. There were no concerns voiced by neighbors about where the existing garage/proposed stable is and where the arena will be located. The exceedance of the disturbance is due in large part to the proposed dressage arena. The other structures (pool, attached garage, residence, and ancillary structures) on the residence building pad are located fairly close to one another and make best use of the shape of the lot as it is constrained by Saddleback Road. Any concerns voiced by residents during the field visit to the property were addressed in the revised site plan. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed stable is not in any setbacks and is located where the existing garage is. It will not cause any additional line of sight issues on Saddleback due to the rows of existing trees currently in the vicinity. The converted stable will be compatible with desired rural aesthetic of Rolling and therefore would not affect property values. The dressage arena likewise will be screened and will remain as open space, therefore not causing the lot to be overdeveloped. D. 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. E. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and will uphold the City's goals to protect and promote construction that is rural in nature. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 896 a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permits and Variances to construct a 4,745 square foot residence with 342 square foot basement/wine cellar and 659 square foot attached garage, convert an existing detached garage to a 2,415 square foot stable and add a 625 square foot loft, 13,860 square foot, (70' by 198'), dressage arena, swimming pool and various outdoor amenities, hardscape, retaining walls and to locate the stable and portion of the arena in the front yard area of the lot (in front of the leading edge of the residence. Grading for this project is proposed to be 23,700 cubic yards of dirt total to be balanced on site which includes overexcavation and recompaction. With the proposed grading, the disturbed area of the lot would be 83%.subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.070, 17.42.070 and 17.38.080, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. Reso. 2016-08 6 p 11 Saddleback Rd. D B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated March 9, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings, and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building, and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the; project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. .:+ ,t F. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 8,970 square feet or 9.1% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork shall not exceed 19,350 square feet or 19.7%, of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations (35% max). Reso. 2016-08 7 0 11 Saddleback Rd. H. Grading for this project shall consist of 5,310 cubic yards of cut and 5,310 cubic yards of fill with 13,080 cubic yards of overexcavation and compaction. The disturbed area of the lot, including the approved stable and corral shall not exceed 83%. I. The residential building pad shall be 17,700 square feet and will have coverage of 34.18%. The stable pad shall be 7,270 square feet and will have coverage of 33.2%. J. The dressage arena may not have lights anywhere within it or around it. Should a mirror be installed in the future at the Arena, and if reflection of the sun off the mirror causes glare on adjoining properties, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner or installer to mitigate this problem in a timely manner. K. The applicant shall provide documented proof that the Southern California Edison Easement has been vacated by SO Cal Edison, or the applicant has permission from them to locate the dressage arena in the easement. L. The applicant shall provide verification from Los Angeles County Land Development Division that the dressage arena can be located in the restricted use area. M. The pool equipment area shall be enclosed and screened with landscaping. Per LA County Building Code, pool barrier/fencing shall be required. N. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. O. All utility lines to the residence and stable shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. P. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. Q. All graded slopes shall be landscaped. A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and graded slopes. Prior to finaling the project, trees and shrubs shall be planted to screen the project from the neighbors. The landscaping shall not form a hedge like screen but be offset. The height of the trees and shrubs shall not at any time exceed the ridgeline of the roof of the structures. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Reso. 2016-08 11 Saddleback Rd. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. R. The setback lines and roadway easement line in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. S. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences - including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. T. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permit for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. U. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. V. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIR E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. W. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easements. There shall be no parking along the common driveway with the adjacent properties or blocking of the common driveway. A flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when necessary. X. The existing portion of the concrete driveway leading to the existing garage shall be removed and access to the stable and to the arena shall be decomposed granite or like 100% pervious roughened material. r' Reso. 2016-08 9 11 Saddleback Rd. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water drainage facilities management and to the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID). Further the property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. Z. Prior to finaling of the project an "as graded" and an "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. AA. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016. 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. Reso. 2016-08 10 11 Saddleback Rd. 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-08 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRESSAGE ARENA, STABLE WITH A LOFT AND CORRAL; A NEW RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, VARIOUS RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED PATIOS, TRELLISES AND DECKS; TO LOCATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE FRONT YARD AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FERMI! l'ED LOT DISTURBANCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 896 AT 11 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (WARREN). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Kirkpatrick and Chairman Chelf. NOES: Commissioner Gray. ABSENT: Commissioner Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-08 11 11 Saddleback Rd. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 8-A Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 BUDGET PRIORITIES DATE: APRIL 11, 2016 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council identify and discuss its priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016/17 fiscal year. BACKGROUND Annually, as part of the process of preparing the fiscal year budget, the City Council is asked to identify budget priorities. In turn, the priorities are incorporated into the budget that is prepared by staff and presented to the City Council for adoption. Staff is currently in the process of developing the proposed FY 2016/17 budget and is scheduled to review it in draft form with the City Council Finance/ Budget/Audit Committee at its meeting of May 9th immediately before the City Council meeting. Incorporated into the draft budget are the priorities identified herein, based on an assessment of current and anticipated projects. It is requested that the City Council review the priorities and consider additions, changes or modifications for preparation of the final proposed budget. DISCUSSION The following represents the projects and tasks identified by staff as work plan priorities in FY 2016/17 and beyond. Based on staff's existing responsibilities, part- time and/or contractual services are incorporated to accomplish several of the projects. 1. Finalize the Update to the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan (State -mandated) 2. Refurbish Tennis Courts and Common Area for ADA Compliance 3. Various Zoning Code Modifications 4. Investigate Fully Funding CalPERS Retirement Liability 5. City Hall ADA Compliance Project 6. Civic Center Landscaping/Hardscape Replacement Repair 7. Election 8. Identify City and Regional Storm Water Retention and Cleanup Projects 9. Financial System Upgrade 10. Initiate the Development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan 11. Stage 2 of Shutter Installation at City Hall FISCAL IMPACT The City Council's additions or changes to the list of priorities, with their fiscal implications, will be addressed in the proposed budget. The budget will be presented to the City Council on June 13, 2016 for consideration. NOTIFICATION The City Council agenda with this item identified for discussion will be included in the City's newsletter of April 6, 2016. CONCLUSION By identifying annual priorities, the City Council allocates City resources thus creating a work plan that guides staff for the year. RRC Budget Priorities.doc 1 RaS gieek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 9-A Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDERA TION OF AN APPROPRIATION FOR A PENINSULA CITIES AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION (ALPR) CAMERA PROJECT TO COMBAT CRIME IN THE REGION. DATE: APRIL 11, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment - ALPR Cost Table RECOMMENDATION 1. The City Council appropriate $44,319.01 to participate in the Peninsula Cities ALPR Camera Project to initiate it, and $1,108.80 annually for the cellular connectivity cost for four (4) additional years. 2. Direct Staff to return with an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase and installation of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras with Vigilant Solutions in conjunction with the four Peninsula cities; and, 3. Direct Staff to return with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the four Peninsula cities for the Peninsula Cities ALPR Camera Project. BACKGROUND As a result of a direction from the Regional Law Committee, the four cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have come together to combat the burglary problem that has plagued every City on the hill. It is believed that one of the best ways to assist law enforcement via technology is to utilize the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) camera system. It is proposed to place 45 cameras at strategic locations within the four cities in order to identify vehicles that are tied to some form of violation and/or criminal activity —stolen vehicle, warrant, and various crimes. The funding proposal has the four cities investing over $617,000 towards the installation of the ALPR cameras and three have been identified for each of gate houses in the City of Rolling Hills that are under the RHCA's jurisdiction. The investment to install one camera at each gatehouse is $51,630, for which the City of Rolling Hills under the proposed funding allocation plan would pay $43,210 for the entire project for all cameras on the peninsula. The 45 camera locations and funding plan proposal were approved by the Regional Law Committee at their March 23rd meeting. The proposal is now before each of the four City Councils' for ultimate approval. To assist in this effort, the Regional Law Committee and the Rolling Hills City Council needed to know if the RHCA Board will allow the ALPR cameras to be installed at the three gate houses. Through a request of City staff, the RHCA Board considered the proposal at their April 7th meeting and approved it in concept. DISCUSSION On March 23, 2016, the Regional Law Committee met and discussed the camera locations and costs for each City. The City of Palos Verdes Estates was also present and supported the plan. Ultimately, the Committee approved plans for 45 cameras throughout the Peninsula at the following locations (Attachment A): • 2 Cameras for PVDS/25th Street transition in RPV to replace pilot cameras • 4 Cameras for PVDW near Marguerite Dr. in RPV • 2 Cameras for Delasonde Dr. near Western Ave. in RPV • 9 Cameras for Crenshaw Blvd. and PVDN in RHE • 11 Cameras for Hawthorne Blvd. and PVDN in RHE • 8 Cameras for PVDN and PVDE in RHE • 1 Camera for Rolling Hills Rd. northbound at PVDN in RHE • 3 Cameras in Rolling Hills, inbound at each of the city's entrances • 3 Cameras at PVDW/Palos Verdes Blvd. entrance coming into PVE from Torrance • 2 Cameras at Via Valmonte, coming into PVE from Hawthorne Blvd. Subsequent to the March 23, 2016 Regional Law meeting, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes also received suggestions from their Councilmembers, as alternatives, that the following cameras be swapped out for the Delasonde Dr. location for the same price or added to the entire package as an additional location: • 2 Cameras on Miraleste Dr. north- and southbound at Via Colinita in RPV Furthermore, at the April 5th RPV City Council meeting, the Council voted to amend the proposal to not swap out these two cameras, but to add them. It was then decided by the Peninsula City Managers not to consider that proposal now, but at the next Regional Law Committee meeting as a separate proposal. FISCAL IMPACT Staff worked with the Sheriff Department's preferred vendor named Vigilant to develop a more accurate cost proposal, and the City Managers from the four cities met to discuss a proposed funding formula. It was originally estimated that camera equipment and installation would cost an average of $15,000 each, with the price varying somewhat by location. Vigilant has reviewed the sites and identified where they could provide cost savings by reducing the number of communication boxes. Vigilant also agreed to provide a bulk purchase discount of $43,000 if the cities could execute a contract by June 24, 2016, which would further reduce the equipment cost to $617,288.78. The attached spreadsheet contains three tables. Table 1 details the locations and the components that make up the one-time and annual costs associated with each site. There are columns for One -Time Costs like Equipment Costs and Infrastructure Costs (such as utility boxes and poles that Vigilant could provide), and together these make up the Total One -Time costs. Each city will be responsible for their own infrastructure costs, but since there is electrical connections at each guard shack, there should be no additional cost. The City of Rolling Hills' total one-time cost for the shared camera equipment and installation will be $43,210.21 if there are no unknown infrastructure obstacles that are found in the field. Staff would need to come back to the City Council for an additional appropriation if any infrastructure challenges are found. The estimated ongoing shared cellular connectivity cost is $1,108.80 annually. The Council would then need to appropriate $44,319.01 to participate in the ALPR Camera Project from the start, and $1,108.80 annually for the cellular connectivity cost. In Table 1, there are also Ongoing Costs, including Cell Costs and Replacement Fund amounts. Each communication box requires its own cellular connection, so the Ce11 Costs column was estimated at $720/year (or $60/month), and multiplied by the number of cameras at each site. A column for a 5 -year Replacement Fund was included as a recommended amount to budget for in the event that the cameras need to be replaced when the warranties expire in five years. This Replacement Fund number was derived by adding 3% to the Equipment Cost figures and dividing over five (5) years. The Year 1-5 Ongoing shows what the annual cost would be by adding the annual Cell Costs and the Replacement Fund costs each year. No maintenance was included as the Sheriff's was able to negotiate a five-year warranty, which far exceeds the two-year warranty normally included. Typically, cameras last longer than five years, but are on a five-year replacement cycle due to newer technology coming out and the inability for the vendor to guarantee availability of parts beyond five years. However, if parts are available and the cameras are still in working order, beginning in Year 6, we expect that we would recommend that the Cities pay for the Extended Warranty ($500/camera) and access to Vigilant's proprietary LEARN Server ($250/camera) as this cost would be less than the recommended Replacement Fund costs. Table 2 shows demographic information for each city from the State Department of Finance, specifically population, dwelling units, and area in square miles. The percentage breakdown for each category is also listed. This information was used by the City Managers of the four cities to determine an equitable cost -sharing formula. As you can see from Table 2, the Population and Dwelling Unit percentages mirror each other very closely. After discussion between the City Managers, it appeared that the sharing of equipment costs and the annual cell costs based on the average of Dwelling Units and Area seemed to be fairly equitable. The Regional Law Committee agreed that this funding formula was acceptable. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the costs from Table 1 by City based on the formula approved by the Regional Law Committee. In Table 3, you can see the percentage average between a City's Dwelling Units and Area was applied to the Equipment Cost, Cell Cost, Replacement Fund, and Potential Year 6+ Costs figures from Table 1. These columns were highlighted in yellow as they illustrate the shared costs between the Cities. The gray columns are the totals that were meant to assist the Cities with what they should be budgeting for one-time and ongoing costs. It is proposed that RPV be the lead agency and bill back the other cities one time for their share of the camera costs, and annually for their share of the cell costs. The replacement funds would be held by each individual city as their respective Councils determined. It is also proposed that as part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), if a City chose to exit the agreement prior to the initial five years, they would be responsible for the cost of relocating the camera to another city. After the initial five- year term, each City would have the option of continuing or not. But, those are details to be worked out in an MOU and brought back to each respective City Council for approval. Timing In order to secure the discount, the contract would need to be executed by all Cities by early June 2016. The proposed calendar would be: Late-March/April: RPV Staff and City Attorney work with Vigilant on Agreement details and prepare an MOU May: Cities review Agreement and MOU and submit changes to RPV City Attorney by mid -May; RPV City Attorney fine-tune Agreement with Vigilant June: Contract brought to City Councils for approval Upon execution of the agreement, each City would coordinate with Vigilant to prepare their sites for installation of the cameras. NOTIFICATION The Rolling Hills Community Association has been advised that this matter is being considered by the City Council. RC:hl ALPR Camera Project Proposal.docr 0 Attachment • ALPR Costs with Delasonde Only TABLE 1 One -Time Costs Ongoing Costs: Years 1-5 Ongoing Costs: Year 6 and Beyond with Warranty City Camera Location 4 Cameras 4 Comm Boxes Equipment Cost Infrastructure Cost Total One -Time Cell Cost Annually Replacement Fund (5 -year) Annually Year 1-5 Ongoing Extended Warranty Annually LEARN Server Annually Potential Year 6+ Costs A B C D E=C+D F=(C'$720) G=(C'1.03)/5 years H=(F+G) 1=(A'$500) J=(A'$250) K=(F+I+J) RPV PVDW/Marguerite Q N N N m N N N N N N el en en M N en N CO 1 $ 54,328.96 $ 7,500.00 $ 61,828.96 $ 720.00 $ 11,191.77 $ 11,911.77 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,720.00 RPV PVDS/25th St 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RPV Delasonde/Western 1 $ 29,200.98 $ 18,441.00 $ 47,641.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735A0 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw SB 1 $ 31,300.98 $ - $ 31,300.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,448.00 $ 7,168.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw NB 1 $ 40,559.98 $ - $ 40,559.98 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.36 $ 9,075.36 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw WB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw EB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN SB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN NB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN WB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN EB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne SB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne NB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne WB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne EB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE Rolling Hills Road at PVDN NB 1 $ 18,126.50 $ - $ 18,126.50 $ 720.00 $ 3,734.06 $ 4,454.06 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,470.00 PVE PV Blvd (both directions) 2 $ 48,520.97 $ 16,500.00 $ 65,020.97 $ 1,440.00 $ 9,995.32 $ 11,435.32 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 3,690.00 PVE Via Valmonte (both directions) 1 $ 30,171.48 $ 8,250.00 $ 38,421.48 .$ 720.00 $ 6,215.32 $ 6,935.32 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,220.00 RH RH Entrances on guard shacks 3 $ 51,630.18 $ - $ 51,630.18 $ 2,160.00 $ 10,635.82 $ 12,795.82 $ 1,500.00 $ 750.00 $ 4,410.00 SUBTOTAL 45 22 $ 660,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 710,979.78 $ 15,840.00 $ 136,019.49 $ 151,859.49 $ 22,500.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 49,590.00 Discount if contract executed by 6/24/16 $ (43,000.00) $ (43,000.00) TOTAL $ 617,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 667,979.78 $ 15,840.00 $ 136,019.49 $ 151,859.49 $ 22,500.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 49,590.00 TABLE 2 Population Pop % Dwelling Units DU % Area (sq. mi.) Area % PVE 13,730 20.7% 5,298 20.9% 4.77 19.2% RPV 42,564 64.1% 16,233 64.0% 13.48 54.3% RH 1,904 2.9% 719 2.8% 2.99 12.0% RHE 8,223 12.4% 3,101 12.2% 3.60 14.5% Total 66,421 100.0% 25,351 100.0% 24.84 100.0% TABLE 3 Based on DU and Area (rounded) Equipment Cost Infrastructure Cost Total One -lime Cell Cost Annually Replacement Fund (5 -year) Year 1-5 Ongoing If possible, Extend Warranty in Yr. 6+ Potential Year 6+ Costs PVE 20% $ 123,457.76 $ 24,750.00 $ 148,207.76 $ 3,168.00 $ 27,203.90 $ 30,371.90 If able to extend, pay for LEARN $ 9,918.00 RPV 60% $ 370,373.27 $ 25,941.00 $ 396,314.27 $ 9,504.00 $ 81,611.69 $ 91,115.69 server($250/Camera) and $ 29,754.00 RH 7% $ 43,210.21 $ - $ 43,210.21 $ 1,108.80 $ 9,521.36 $ 10,630.16 Warranty $500/camera for $ 3,471.30 RHE 13% $ 80,247.54 $ - $ 80,247.54 $ 2,059.20 $ 17,682.53 $ 19,741.73 Year 6+ because less than $ 6,446.70 100% $ 617,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 667,979.78 $ 15,840.00 1 $ 136,019.49 $ 151,859.49 annual replacement costs. $ 49,590.00 Attachment ALPR Costs with Delasonde Only TABLE 1 One -Time Costs Ongoing Costs: Years 1-5 Ongoing Costs: Yea 6 and Beyond with Warranty City Camera Location It Cameras a Comm Boxes Equipment Cost Infrastructure Cost Total One -Time Cell Cost Annually Replacement Fund (5 -year) Annually Year 1-5 Ongoing Extended Warranty Annually LEARN Server Annually Potential Year 6+ Costs A B C D E=C+D F=(C'$720) G=(C'1.03)/5 years H=(F+G) 1=(A'$S00) 1=(A'$250) K=(F+1+1) RPV PVDW/Marguerite W N W N W W W N N N N N N N W N N N a 1 $ 54,328.96 $ 7500.00 $ 61,828.96 $ 720.00 $ 11,191.77 $ 11,911.77 $ 2,000.00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O a V 0 0 0 0 a aa S a S 8 0 a S S 8 Oi 8888888888888888888'; $ 3,720.00 RPV PVDS/25th St - 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RPV Delasonde/Western 1 $ 29,200.98 $ 18,441.00 $ 47,641.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw SB 1 $ 31,300.98 $ - $ 31,300.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,448.00 $ 7,168.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw NB 1 $ 40,559.98 $ - $ 40,559.98 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.36 $ 9,075.36 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw WB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Crenshaw EB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN SB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN NB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN WB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDE/PVDN EB 1 $ 29,490.48 $ - $ 29,490.48 $ 720.00 $ 6,075.04 $ 6,795.04 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne SB 1 $ 29,200.98 $ - $ 29,200.98 $ 720.00 $ 6,015.40 $ 6,735.40 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne NB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne WB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE PVDN/Hawthorne EB 1 $ 40,560.97 $ - $ 40,560.97 $ 720.00 $ 8,355.56 $ 9,075.56 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,970.00 RHE Rolling Hills Road at PVDN NB 1 $ 18,126.50 $ - $ 18,126.50 $ 720.00 $ 3,734.06 $ 4,454.06 $ 500.00 $ 1,470.00 PVE PV Blvd (both directions) 2 $ 48,520.97 $ 16,500.00 $ 65,020.97 $ 1,440.00 $ 9,995.32 $ 11,435.32 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,690.00 PVE Via Valmonte (both directions) 1 $ 30,171.48 $ 8,250.00 $ 38,421.48 '$ 720.00 $ 6,215.32 $ 6,935.32 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,220.00 RH ` RH Entrances on guard shacks 3 $ 51,630.18 $ - $ 51,630.18 $ 2,160.00 $ 10,635.82 $ 12,795.82 $ 1,500.00 $ 4,410.00 SUBTOTAL 45 22 $ 660,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 710,979.78 $ 15,840.00 $ 136,019.49 $ 151,859.49 $ 22,500.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 49,590.00 Discount if contract executed by 6/24/16 $ (43,000.00) $ (43,000.00) TOTAL $ 617,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 667,979.78 $ 15,840.00 $ 136,019.49 $ 151,859.49 $ 22,500.00 $ 11,250.00 $ 49,590.00 TABLE 2 Population Pop % Dwelling Units DU % Area (sq. mi.) Area % PVE 13,730 20.7% 5,298 20.9% 4.77 19.2% RPV 42,564 64.1% 16,233 64.0% 13.48 54.3% RH 1,904 2.9% 719 2.8% 2.99 12.0% RHE 8,223 12.4% 3,101 12.2% 3.60 14.5% Total 66,421 100.0% 25,351 100.0% 24.84 100.0% TABLE 3 Based on DU and Area (rounded) Equipment Cost Infrastructure Cost Total One -Time Cell Cost Annually Replacement Fund (5 -year) Year 1.5 Ongoing If possible, Extend Warranty in Yr. 6+ Potential Year 6+ Costs PVE 20% $ 123,457.76 $ 24,750.00 $ 148,207.76 $ 3,168.00 $ 27,203.90 $ 30,371.90 If able to extend, pay for LEARN $ 9,918.00 RPV 60% $ 370,373.27 $ 25,941.00 $ 396,314.27 $ 9,504.00 $ 81,611.69 $ 91,115.69 server ($250/Camera) and $ 29,754.00 RH 7% $ 43,210.21 $ - $ 43,210.21 $ 1,108.80 $ 9,521.36 $ 10,630.16 Warranty $500/camera for $ 3,471.30 RHE 13% $ 80,247.54 $ - $ 80,247.54 $ 2,059.20 $ 17,682.53 $ 19,741.73 Year 6+ because less than $ 6,446.70 100% $ 617,288.78 $ 50,691.00 $ 667,979.78 $ 15,840.00 $ 136,019A9 $ 151,859A9 annual replacement costs. $ 49,590.00 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ear el Rea, qe INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310)377-7288 Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER 1'/ CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO ASSIST EIGHT (8) WILLIAMSBURG LANE HOMEOWNERS IN PAYING FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN DEPOSIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES. April 11, 2016 ATTACHMENT: Map of Homes Included in the Amended Undergrounding Project Area RECOMMENDATION To discuss the possible funding amendment for the pending Williamsburg Lane undergrounding project for eight (8) homes by approving an appropriation of $9,667.50 to fund 50% of the engineering design costs. This is in lieu of the $29,500 request the City Council approved for the 15 homes on Williamsburg Lane in October. BACKGROUND The City Council at its June 8, 2015 meeting approved $17,000 for the engineering design deposit for the Williamsburg Lane undergrounding project. The appropriation covered 50% of the engineering design deposit for Cox and Verizon. An engineering design deposit from Edison was not considered since the City was initially informed that all the Edison undergrounding costs were to be covered as part of its circuit tie-in project planned for Williamsburg Lane. As more details were shared about the circuit tie-in project last summer, staff was informed that most Edison costs were covered for the undergrounding utilities project, but not all. Staff convened a meeting with Edison officials and Sean Bennett so it could be explained what costs the Williamsburg Lane project would be the responsibility of the residents. It was shared that the residents would be responsible for the design and constructions costs to place the equipment such as transformers underground and remove the poles. The City was notified in the Fall Edison that the "Magnitude of Order Estimate" to perform the work is $75,000 — down from $500,000 to do an undergrounding project from scratch. Of the $75,000, $25,000 is needed to pay the cost of the engineering design deposit. Therefore, to be consistent of the past action of the City Council to fund 50% of the engineering design, City Council would need to appropriate additional $12,500 to assist the Williamsburg residents for the Edison portion. At the City Council's October 26, 2015 meeting, the City Council approved the additional $12,500 to fund 50% of the costs associated with the Edison engineering design deposit. Therefore, the total that the City committed for the Williamsburg project for engineer design costs for the three utilities was $29,500. DISCUSSION A meeting of the Williamsburg Lane residents was held on November 18, 2015 to provide them information on the undergrounding project and the steps to establish an assessment district. The magnitude of order estimates were made known to the residents and the City's financial commitment to pay for 50% of the engineering design cost. As a result of the meeting, it was clear that there was not an agreement among all the residents to participate in the project. Resident Sean Bennett who has led the effort on Williamsburg reached out to all the residents to determine if they wanted to amend the size of the project. After doing his outreach, he amended the scope of the project to only do the west side of Williamsburg Lane that includes eight (8) homes, down from fifteen (15). Mr. Bennett then asked for a new "magnitude of order" cost estimate and engineering design deposit for the eight homes. This information was recently received from the three utilities as shown in the table below and Mr. Bennett is now asking the City for $9,667.50 that would fund 50% of the engineering design deposit. This is in lieu of the $29,500 request the City Council approved for the 15 homes on Williamsburg Lane in October. Utility Magnitude of Order Cost Estimate Engineering & Design Deposit SCE $45,000 $15,000 Verizon $13,000 (+/- $3,000) $1,500 Cox $31,803.89 $2,835 TOTAL $89803.89 (+/- $3,000) $19,335 FISCAL IMPACT The City of Rolling Hills during the FY 2004/05 budget process established a Utility Fund with an appropriation of $250,000. This Utility Fund's initial objective was to assist residents with "seed money" to initiate undergrounding of overhead utilities projects. The Utility Fund's scope later included assisting residents with extending r main sewer lines in the City. Although the Utility Fund has grown with further appropriations, the City has not had a successful undergrounding or sewer project move forward via the assessment district process. There is presently approximately $1,270,000 in the Utility Fund. Therefore, funds exist in the Utility Fund to appropriate $9,667.50 to pay for 50% of the engineering design costs in lieu of the $29,500 request the City Council approved for the 15 homes on Williamsburg Lane in October. NOTIFICATION Residents on Williamsburg Lane. 0 569 I 17 I E S^ - ISO' 8, 10, 12, 14 & 16 Williamsburg Lane 60 CODE 7084 FOR NEV. ASSMT. SEE' 486 -13 ROLLING HILLS M.B. 201-29 -35 \ - REVISED Ng'. Revised Map - West side November 25, 2015 Williamsburg Lane - 2 of 2 ALL ACREAGES ON THIS PAGE ARE NET ASSESSOR'S NAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,CALIF. r' 7569 I 16 :ALE I" - 150- 2003 2, 4 & 6 Williamsburg Lan 80 Coen 7084 FOR PRSY. ASSMT. Sa 488 -13 &-Ii• Williamsburg Lane - T of 2 Revised Map - West side November 25, 2015 // O Sit 38 _Jbh O JO6WY 1 a6Pm:'. a 4 1 HAS 'k 4 402'44 41 CH'S- i J 3 y t¢m V F4SJga �A, 1 •74ASOS', _ N ma' f ,^. CA 1-, 44 -.. TS. N 1 44 d i ,da. AO SI 1.. w O �Qa £35/A4. . / /a/ O 45 tie, W A / SW / /. off/ / al 1 I ROLLING HILLS M.B. 201 -29 -35 ALL ACREAGES ON THIS PAGE ARE NET REVISED If -IS -d thvafv 00Azo n ASSESSED'S NAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF. CLOSED SESSION ear al Rages9 W=cgl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CLOSED SESSION Agenda Item No.: 12 Mtg. Date: 04/11/16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR CONSIDERATION OF IDENTIFIED CITY EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASES WITH THEIR ASSOCIATED LONG-TERM CALPERS OBLIGATIONS. DATE: APRIL 11, 2016 ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Salary Survey of Nearby Cities Cost of 2%, 3%, 4% & 5% Salary & Benefit Increase Spreadsheets Salary Increases and Pension Benefit Analysis RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the adjustments to the employees' salaries set forth by the Finance Director in order make the City competitive with its neighboring cities. We are proposing increases in salaries for certain positions. BACKGROUND At the April 13, 2015 meeting of the City Council Finance/Budget/ Audit Committee addressed recommended budget/work plan priorities for the FY 2015/16 fiscal year budget. One of the recommended items was a Compensation Study of City Employees. As part of the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual a Comprehensive Compensation Survey (Chapter V - Section 3) will be conducted from time to time to assure that the City's jobs are paid equitably against the labor market. The Survey will include each position and include labor market comparisons to the following cities: Carson, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, Lomita, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates and Signal Hill. The City's compensation has not been reviewed since FY 2007 / 08 and should be reviewed again in order to make recommendations that are within budget constraints, consistent within the profession and agreed upon by the Finance/Budget/ Audit Committee, Personnel Committee and ultimately the City Council. As part of the FY 2015/16 Budget Adoption staff report to City Council on June 8, 2015 the City Manager stated the staff has not received a salary adjustment in several years and it is believed the City's salaries and benefits are not competitive with the nearby comparable cities. The City of Rolling Hills' staff often wears many more hats than most employees with similar positions in other cities and work within a busy and stressful work environment. The City's employees are expected to provide high quality services to a very demanding public. Within a reasonable and prudent framework, it is recommended the Budget and Personnel Committees, review the compensation of the employees and provide a salary to each employee that is commensurate to each employee's responsibilities and be competitive with our local municipalities. For employees to feel they are a valued asset to the City and its residents, keeping the employees' salaries within the 85th percentile of the average of the City's comparable cities should be considered. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Compensation Survey In July of 2015, Finance conducted the Comprehensive Compensation Survey (See Attached Exhibit 1). The Finance Director compared the current salaries to the average of the high and low average amounts for each of the positions. The City's salaries for the Administrative Assistant and the Associate Planner positions are comparable to that amount. The salaries for Planning Director and City Clerk/Executive Assistant are well below the average of the high and low salaries. Average of the Salaries- High and Low end of Tables Planning Director City Clerk/ Exec. Assist. Admin. Assistant Associate Planner Averge of the High and Low $ 131,630 $ 90,629 $ 55,040 $ 81,689 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Differences $ (24,990) $ (15,101) $ (4,682) $ (7,325) The Finance Director also compared the City's actual salaries to 85% of the median number in the high -end range of the salaries schedule and the results are comparable with the above schedule. We used 85% of the median because we used the high end numbers only. Median of the High End of the Tables Planning Director City Clerk/ Exec. Assist. Admin. Assistant Associate Planner Median of High End $ 147,372 $ 113,988 $ 59,454 $ 92,541 85% of the Median $ 125,266 $ 96,890 $ 50,536 $ 78,660 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Differences $ (18,626) $ (21,362) $ (178) $ (4,296) The Finance Director and City Manager are proposing to increase the salaries for the Planning Director and the City Clerk/Executive Assistant positions. The Finance Director calculated a 2%, 3%, 4% and 5% increase for the indentified positions and have included worksheets to show the total costs of the increases. In addition, the Finance Director included a report that shows the additional PERS liability for each position for the proposed raises. Please see the Salary Increases & Pension Benefit Analysis attached. FY 15/16 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) The FY 2015/16 COLA based on May 2015, Los Angeles/Orange County/Riverside Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items per Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual (Chapter V - Section 17) was 1.1 %. The FY 2015/16 COLA was budgeted for 2.0%. This leaves approximately $8,000 of budgeted salaries that are available to give staff increases that will not increase the bottom line. The City's' General Fund is in the financial position to absorb these salary increases as the City added $230,441 and $490,416 to its fund balance reserves for fiscal years 2012/13 and 2013/14, respectively and the increase for fiscal year 2014/15 is $541,574. Merit Advancement The Merit Advancement section of the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policy Manual (Chapter V - Section 5) states: The City Manager has the authority and discretion to adjust all Regular and part-time employee salaries within their range at any time (Effective 2009). The City Manager shall justify a salary change within the range with documentation and based on the performance and skill -level of the employee. 0 FISCAL IMPACT Regardless of the funding scenario that City Council chooses to bring the employees to a competitive salary in the marketplace, the Finance Director believes the City has the revenues to sustain the compensation and associated CalPERS obligations. CONCLUSION After receiving the staff briefing in closed session and analyzing the information provided in this staff report, the City Council can make a decision on how it wants to proceed with the employee compensation issue. This can include setting a level of compensation for each step within the salary range for each employee or seek additional information from staff before making a final decision. TS:RC:hl SalaryAdjust men t-stafreport.docx City of Rolling Hills Salary Schedules of Nearby Cities As of July 2015 Planning Director City Clerk/ Executive Assistant Administrative Assistant Associate Planner Low 1 High Low I High Low I High Low I High Carson $ 112,476 $ 143,532 $ 92,340 $ 117,840 $ 50,592 $ 64,560 $ 70,380 $ 89,808 El Segundo 108,395 131,755 66,150 80,406 45,928 55,825 - - Hermosa Beach 117,456 135,972 57,864 70,356 57,864 70,356 69,600 84,552 Lawndale 112,080 136,236 96,816 117,684 47,520 57,768 74,340 90,360 Lomita NA NA # 95,412 118,200 47,412 58,932 - - Palos Verdes Estates 115,152 151,212 73,860 92,412 44,160 56,364 74,364 94,908 Rancho Palos Verdes 90,575 153,365 84,809 143,593 50,637 65,753 70,104 91,051 Rolling Hills Estates 125,832 188,772 76,020 113,988 N/A N/A 70,476 105,708 Signal Hill 122,517 160,753 58,677 74,901 46,992 59,976 69,410 88,587 Average of the 9 Cities $ 113,060 $ 150,200 $ 77,994 $ 103,264 $ 48,888 $ 61,192 $ 71,239 $ 92,139 Average of Low/High $ 131,630 $ 90,629 $ 55,040 $ 81,689 Median $ 113,184 $ 147,372 $ 76,020 $ 113,988 $ 47,466 $ 59,454 $ 70,380 $ 90,360 Rolling Hills Table $ 83,544 $ 110,688 $ 58,572 $ 76,884 $ 39,384 $ 52,188 74,364 94,908 Rolling Hills Actual $ 106,640 $ 75,528 $ 50,358 $ 74,364 Average of 8 cities #- Position is Assistant City Manager salary of $154,656 Average of 8 cities Average of 7 cities City of Rolling Hills Position Titles of Nearby Cities Carson Planning Manager Chief Deputy City Clerk Management Assist. Associate Planner El Segundo Planning Manager Deputy City Clerk II Admin. Specialist NA Hermosa Beach Senior Planner Deputy City Clerk Administrative Assistant Planning Associate Lawndale Associate Planner Assistant City Clerk Admin. Assistant II Associate Planner Lomita City Clerk Administrative Clerk IV NA Palos Verdes Estates Planner City Clerk/Exec. Assist. Office Specialist Planner Rancho Palos Verdes Principal Planner City Clerk Admin. Staff Assist. Associate Planner Rolling Hills Estates Senior Planner Deputy City Clerk No Position Associate Planner Signal Hill Planning Manager Exec, Assist/Deputy CC Administrative Assist. Associate Planner City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Planning Director 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 2,132.80 160.17 $ 132.23 30.93 2,456.13 $ 108,772.80 $ 8,168.84 $ 6,743.91 $ 1,577.21 $ 125,262.76 2.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 3,199.20 240.26 198.35 46.39 3,684.20 $ 109,839.20 $ 8,248.92 $ 6,810.03 $ 1,592.67 $ 126,490.82 3.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 4,265.60 320.35 264.47 61.85 4,912.26 $ 110,905.60 $ 8,329.01 $ 6,876.15 $ 1,608.13 $ 127,718.89 4.00% Current Salary $ 106,640.00 $ 8,008.66 $ 6,611.68 $ 1,546.28 $ 122,806.62 Additional 5,332.00 400.43 330.58 77.31 6,140.33 $ 111,972.00 $ 8,409.10 $ 6,942.26 $ 1,623.59 $ 128,946.96 5.00% City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases City Clerk/Executive Assistant 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 1,510.56 113.44 $ 93.65 21.90 1,739.56 $ 77,038.56 $ 5,785.60 $ 4,776.39 $ 1,117.06 $ 88,717.61 2.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 2,265.84 170.16 140.48 32.85 2,609.34 $ 77,793.84 $ 5,842.32 $ 4,823.22 $ 1,128.01 $ 89,587.39 3.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 3,021.12 226.89 187.31 43.81 3,479.12 $ 78,549.12 $ 5,899.04 $ 4,870.05 $ 1,138.96 $ 90,457.17 4.00% Current Salary $ 75,528.00 $ 5,672.15 $ 4,682.74 $ 1,095.16 $ 86,978.04 Additional 3,776.40 283.61 234.14 54.76 4,348.90 $ 79,304.40 $ 5,955.76 $ 4,916.87 $ 1,149.91 $ 91,326.95 5.00% 0 City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Administrative Assistant 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 1,007.16 75.64 $ 62.44 14.60 1,159.85 $ 51,365.16 $ 3,857.52 $ 3,184.64 $ 744.79 $ 59,152.12 2.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 .$ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 1,510.74 113.46 93.67 21.91 1,739.77 $ 51,868.74 $ 3,895.34 $ 3,215.86 $ 752.10 $ 59,732.04 3.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 2,014.32 151.28 124.89 29.21 2,319.69 $ 52,372.32 $ 3,933.16 $ 3,247.08 $ 759.40 $ 60,311.96 4.00% Current Salary $ 50,358.00 $ 3,781.89 $ 3,122.20 $ 730.19 $ 57,992.27 Additional 2,517.90 189.09 156.11 36.51 2,899.61 $ 52,875.90 $ 3,970.98 $ 3,278.31 $ 766.70 $ 60,891.89 5.00% City of Rolling Hills Salary & Benefit Costs Increases Associate Planner 7.51% 6.20% 1.45% Salary PERS FICA Medicare Total Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 1,487.28 111.69 $ 92.21 21.57 1,712.75 $ 75,851.28 $ 5,696.43 $ 4,702.78 $ 1,099.84 $ 87,350.33 2.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 2,230.92 167.54 138.32 32.35 2,569.13 $ 76,594.92 $ 5,752.28 $ 4,748.89 $ 1,110.63 $ 88,206.71 3.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 2,974.56 223.39 184.42 43.13 3,425.50 $ 77,338.56 $ 5,808.13 $ 4,794.99 $ 1,121.41 $ 89,063.09 4.00% Current Salary $ 74,364.00 $ 5,584.74 $ 4,610.57 $ 1,078.28 $ 85,637.58 Additional 3,718.20 279.24 230.53 53.91 4,281.88 $ 78,082.20 $ 5,863.97 $ 4,841.10 $ 1,132.19 $ 89,919.46 5.00% co • Govinvest Insights to your financial future Salary Increases & Pension Benefit Analysis City of Rolling Hills March 2016 Scenario 3: Heidi Luce, 3% Salary Increase di: Member < Adjustments Sa ry- Reset • 2:.: sa -ry c_.2 • Hcrc!A 411/4. Govinvest Heidi Luce 49 years old S50( S4OR S30K ST/6 SIOg SO 2016 6.4 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION OPEB BONDED DEBT Member Liability O Accrued: Ong Hills. CA Admin - $227.151( 0 Adjusted: $233.97K The city's liability increases by $6.81K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $998.7 $43K $30.71( 544.4K $52.1K Adjusted: $0 51.0K $4.6K $31.7K $45.7K 553.7K +/- $30 $135.3 $922.1 $1.31( $1.61( 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2026 2030 2002 21G4 2006 2033 2040 2042 2✓i a Govinvest VP Insights to your financial haw* Scenario 4: Heidi Luce, 5% Salary Increase I._. Member 1 :J Saary - Adjustments Reset • ;:104.91' Salary Cep - • R te! rGovinvest Heidi Luce 49 years old S60K 1506 S10K 530K 120K 5;01 so 2016 6.4 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION OPEB BONDED DEBT Member Liability 0 Accrued: Rolling Mills. CA Admin - $227.15K 0 Adjusted: 5238.51K The city's liability increases by $11.36K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $998.7 $4SK $30.7K $44.4K 552.1K Adjusted: $0 $1.0K 54.7K $32.3K 546.6K 554.7K +1- $49.9 $225.5 51.5K $2.2K $2.6K Accrued member liability. $0.00 Adjusted member liability: $0.00 2028 2020 2022 202' 2026 2323 20:.0 2032 2031 2036 2033 2012 23" a Govl nvest Vir insights to your financial haute Scenario 5: Yolanta Schwartz, 3% Salary Increase Member <, Li Salary - Adjustments 0 Reset Bt, 1: Salary Cap NC, Govinvest Yolanta Schwartz 16.2 years of service Miscellaneous 64 years old BENSON ORES BONDED DEBT Member Liability o Accrued: Rolling Hills. CA Admin - 5310.99K 0 Adjusted: 5320.32K The city's liability increases by $9.33K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $18.3K 524.8K $29.5K $27.8K $25.6K 517.8K Adjusted: $18.91( $253K $30.41( 528.6K $26.4K $18.4K +/- $549.8 $743.3 $884.1 $832.7 $7692 $534.6 S30K ................................... .... ... .... .. .. ' 525K .. 3151 St0< SSK SD 3+26 2018 2320 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2204 296 2079 2040 2042 2✓< Govinvest Insights to your financial future Scenario 6: Yolanta Schwartz, 5% Salary Increase Member < Adjustments Salary - Reset • Salary Cao - • Rnel A 0 Govinvest Yolanta Schwartz 16.2 years of service Miscellaneous 64 years old PENSION OVER BONDED DEBT Member Liability 0 Accrued: Raging HIDs, CA Admin - $310.99K 0 Adjusted: $326.54K The city's liability increases by $15.551( 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows. $18.3K 124.8K $295K 127.8K 1254K 117.8K Adjusted: $192K $26.0K 130.9K 129.1K 126.9K $18.7K +/- $916.3 $1.2K 11.5K 11.4K 11.3K 1890.9 521.40K 515K S10K !SIC SO 7016 Acaued member liability. 521.40f Adjusted member liability: 522.47K Difference: $1.07K 2016 2020 2022 2024 2026 2328 2030 2032 3:02 2336 2033 2040 2042 231 Govinvest V Insights to your rinandal 6auro Scenario 7: Ewa Nikodem, 3% Salary Increase Govinvest Ewa Nikodem 50 years old 12.6 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION OPEl BONDED DEBT Member liability 0 Accrued: Rolling Hills. CA Ad min - $190.50K Q Adjusted: $196.21K The city's liability increases by $5.72K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $125.9 $1.8K $10.0K $28.5K $34.8K $36.6K Adjusted: $129.6 $1.9K $10.3K $29.41( $35.8K $37.7K ♦1- $3.8 $54.1 $298.7 $855.2 $1.0K $1.1K 2018 2320 2022 2026 2026 2028 2030 2032 296 2036 2333 2160 2a62 20" aGovl nvest insights to your financial Mille Scenario 8: Ewa Nikodem, 5% Salary Increase $ Govinvest Ewa Nikodem 50 years old 12.6 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION OPEB BONDED DEBT Member liability o Accrued: Bulling Nina, CA Admin - 5190.50K 0 Adjusted: 5200.02K The city's liability increases by $9.53K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $125.9 $1.8K $10.0K 528.5K 834.8K 536.6K Adjusted: $1322 $1.9K $10.5K $29.9K $363K $38.4K +1- $6.3 $90.1 $497.8 51.4K 51.7K 51.8K Accrued member liability: 535.78K Adjusted member liability: 537.56K Difference 51.79K 2018 2920 2222 2224 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2936 2313 2040 2242 2065 ita Govl nvest V Insights to your financial hmua Scenario 9: Wendy Starks, 3% Salary Increase Govinvest Wendy Starks SSat seat 53tK slot Slat SD 7016 0.1 years of service Miscellaneous 49 years old PENSION OPEB BONDED DEBT Member Liability Q Accrued: Rollins Hills. CA Admin - $169.44K 0 Adjusted: $174.52K The city's liability increases by $5:08K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $610.1 $4.9K $17.6K $32.0K $433K Adjusted: $0 $628.4 $5.0K $18.2K $33.0K $44.6K +/- $183 $145.8 $529 $961.3 $1.3K 2016 2320 2022 2024 2026 2023 7330 2032 1034 296 2039 2040 2042 2✓e Govinvest Insights to your financial Mum Scenario 10: Wendy Starks, 5% Salary Increase d F,; Member < Adjustments Salary - +5 Rest • salary Cap • 78GR2.2 Reset A:: bGovinvest Wendy Starks 49 years old 550,' 540( SICK 520K <.0K SO 2016 0.1 years of service Miscellaneous PENSION OPEB BONDED DEBT Member Liability 0 Accrued: Rolling Hills. CA Admin - $169.44K Q Adjusted: 5177.91K The city's liability increases by $8.47K. 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Expected cashflows: $0 $610.1 $4.9K $17.6K $32.0( $43.3K Adjusted: $0 $640.6 $5.1K $18.5K $33.6K $45.5K ♦/- $30.5 $243 $881.7 $1.6K $2.2K 2010 2020 2022 2024 2026 2025 2'030 2032 2004 233!'6 2030 2040 2042 23" Govinvest Insights to your financial future Summary of Results Change to Rolling Hills' Liability Over the Employees' Lifetime 3% Salary Increase 5% Salary Increase Comments Heidi l- +$6.81K +$11.36K Yolanta Schwartz. +$9.33K +$15.55K Ewa Niko o -m +$5.72K +$9.53K W-noy Starks +$5.08K +$8.47K Govl nvest Insights to your financial future