CL_AGN_220621_PC_AgendaPacket_F1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4.APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
This is the appropriate time for the Chair or Commissioners to approve the agenda as is or reorder.
5.BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the
printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
6.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
This section is intended to provide members of the public with the opportunity to comment on any subject that does not
appear on this agenda for action. Each speaker will be permitted to speak only once. Written requests, if any, will be
considered first under this section.
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
AGENDA
Regular Planning Commission
Meeting
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 21, 2022
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
6:30 PM
Executive Order N-29-20
This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020.
All Planning Commissioners will participate by teleconference. Public Participation: City Hall will be closed to
the public until further notice.
A live audio of the Planning Commission meeting will be available on the City's website (https://www.rolling-
hills.org/PC%20Meeting%20Zoom%20Link.pdf).
The meeting agenda is also available on the City's website
(https://www.rolling-hills.org/government/agenda/index.php).
Join Zoom Meeting via:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/99343882035?pwd=MWZXaG9ISWdud3NpajYwY3dF bllFZz09
Meeting ID: 993 4388 2035 Passcode: 647943
Members of the public may submit comments in real time by emailing the City Clerk's office at
cityclerk@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become a part of the official meeting record. You must provide your
full name but do not provide any other personal information (i.e., phone numbers, addresses, etc) that you do
not want to be published.
1
7.CONSENT CALENDAR
Business items, except those formally noticed for public hearing, or those pulled for discussion are assigned to the
Consent Calendar. The Chair or any Commissioner may request that any Consent Calendar item(s) be removed,
discussed, and acted upon separately. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be taken up under the "Excluded
Consent Calendar" section below. Those items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved in one motion. The
Chair will call on anyone wishing to address the Commission on any Consent Calendar item on the agenda, which has
not been pulled by Commission for discussion.
7.A.CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS
DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF AB 361.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
7.B.APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: MAY 17, 2021, PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL FIELD TRIP MEETING; MAY 17, 2021, PLANNING
COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented.
8.EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
9.PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
9.A.ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW
5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH
RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT
GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-
SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LCC)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07 approving Zoning Case No. 21-02 for a Site
Plan Review to demolish a residence and construct a new 5,215-square-foot
single-family residence and related improvements; and a Variance to
construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the setback area and conduct non-
exempt grading.
10.NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.A.ZONING CASE NO. 22-44: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SECOND MAJOR
MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY
APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND
CL_MIN_220517_PC_FieldTrip_F.pdf
CL_MIN_220517_PC_F.pdf
Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane Rd.pdf
Development Table (ZC 21-02)_V3.pdf
2022-07_PC_Resolution_11FlyingManeRoad_ZC 21-02.pdf
Traffic Engineer's Memo - M01 11 Flying Mane.pdf
C-City Grading Plan_C(6.6.22).pdf
11 Flying Mane - RHCA - 22 0527-reduced.pdf
2
FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
750-SQUARE-FOOT STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE
AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD, CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT SETBACK
AREA, AND FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP
TO A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY Â LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-UR),
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
R EC O M M EN D AT I O N: Open the public hearing, receive public testimony,
discuss the project, and adopt Resolution No. 2022-08 approving the project
as presented.
10.B.RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public
hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance
(Attachment 2) amending RHMC Chapter 17.28 regarding ADUs
and JADUs; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the proposed Ordinance is statutorily
exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
section 21080.17.
10.C.RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING EMPLOYEE,
SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO
BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public
Vicinity Map.pdf
220616_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Development Table.pdf
EARTH-INFO-6-15-22.pdf
Memo from Traffic Engineer 052022.pdf
220512_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Driveway Location Pictures.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-08 - 8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC 22-44-PROPOSED.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-04 - 8 Middleridge Lane South ZC 21-10-CORRECT.pdf
Resolution No. 2021-11 for Time Ext (ZC 956) 8 Middleridge Ln S.pdf
Resolution No. 2019-13 8 Middleridge Lane South.pdf
ARCH-SITE PLAN-6-16-22 11X17.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Site Plan.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Barn Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_CutFill Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Slope Plans.pdf
Attachment 1 - 2022-09_PC_Resolution__ADU_Ordinance.pdf
Attachment 2 - 2022-09_PC_Resolution_Exhibit_A_ADU_Ordinance.pdf
Attachment 3 - REDLINE-c1.pdf
3
hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance
(Attachment 2) amending various sections of the RHMC to ensure
consistency with State law regarding employee, supportive, and
transitional housing; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3).
10.D.RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve as presented.
10.E.RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND FINDING THE
ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public
hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance
(Attachment 2) adding Chapter 17.62 to the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code regarding density bonuses and other affordable housing
incentives required by State law; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15358, 15305, and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3).
11.OLD BUSINESS
12.NEW BUSINESS
13.SCHEDULE FIELD TRIPS
14.ITEMS FROM STAFF
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-10_Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 377-Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-11_Family_Day_Care_Homes.pdf
Attached 2 - Ordinance No. 378_Family_Day_Care__Homes.A.pdf
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-
12_Density_Bonuses_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 379-Density_Bonus_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
4
15.ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
16.ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:30 p.m.via teleconference.
Notice:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for
your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in
the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
All of the above resolutions and zoning case items have been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines unless otherwise stated.
5
Agenda Item No.: 7.A
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
MEETINGS DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF AB 361.
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
With the Governor ’s approval of AB 361, public agencies have been granted the continuing
ability to conduct virtual meetings during declared public health emergencies under specified
circumstances until January 1, 2024. Based on the requirements of AB 361, in order for the
City to hold virtual meetings, the Planning Commission needs to determine monthly that the
following conditions exist:
1) There continues to be a health and safety risk due to COVID-19 as a proclaimed state of
emergency with recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
2) Meeting in person during the proclaimed state of emergency would present imminent risks
to the health and safety of attendees.
The other requirements associated with continued virtual meetings are outlined in the text of
AB 361. The recommended action is for the Planning Commission to find that the following
conditions exist and that they necessitate remote Committee meetings for the coming month:
1) There continues to be a health and safety risk due to COVID-19 as a proclaimed state of
emergency with recommended measures to promote social distancing; and
2) Meeting in person during the proclaimed state of emergency would present imminent
risks to the health and safety of attendees. These findings will need to be made by the City
Council each month that the City opts to continue with remote meetings.
6
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
7
Agenda Item No.: 7.B
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK / EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO
CITY MANAGER
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES:
MAY 17, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL FIELD TRIP
MEETING;
MAY 17, 2021, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
None.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
CL_MIN_220517_PC_FieldTrip_F.pdf
CL_MIN_220517_PC_F.pdf
8
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Field Trip Meeting 7:30 a.m.
18 Eastfield Drive
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met at 18 Eastfield Drive on the above date at 7:31 a.m.
Commissioner Sean Cardenas presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Public Present: Joe & Christine Rich, Gregory W. George, Leah Mirsch
3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA– NONE
4. FIELD TRIPS
4.A. ZONING CASE NO. 21-16: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RETAINING WALL; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR RECREATIONAL GAME COURT; AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DISTURBANCE FOR A PROPERTY LOCAT ED AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT
69-A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (RICH)
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
Public Comment: Leah Mirsch
The Commission moved their field trip to 11 Flying Mane Road.
4.B. ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT
SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT
NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-
SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LCC)
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Public Present: Giancarlo & Lola Fantappie, Michelle Mollura, James Aichele, John
Mackenbach, John Ruzicka, Tomas Smalley, Charlie & Clarisse
Shumaker, Leah Mirsch
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
9
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Page 2
Commissioner Douglass disclosed that she has a residential financial interest because she lives within 500
feet of the subject property. However, out of necessity for a quorum she participated as a commissioner.
Public Comment: Michelle Mollura, John Ruzicka, Tomas Smalley, Charlie Shumaker
The Commission moved their field trip to 16 Southfield Drive.
4.C. ZONING CASE NO. 22-20: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,583-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE, MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, GRADING, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
FOR A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SETBACK AREA
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE (LOT 33-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(BURGOYNE)
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Kirkpatrick, Chair Chelf
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Public Present: Joy Burgoyne, Anthony Inferrera, David Palacios, Marita Geraghty,
Leah Mirsch
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director.
Public Comment: David Palacios, Marita Geraghty
5. ADJOURNMENT: 8:51 A.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 a.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to
be held on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 beginning at 6:30 p.m. via tele-conference.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
10
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Page 1
Minutes
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m.
Via tele-conference
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills met via teleconference on the above date at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Brad Chelf presiding.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Kirkpatrick
Staff Present: John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Melissa Flores, Administrative Clerk
Jane Abzug, City Attorney
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Planning & Community Services Director John Signo led the Pledge.
4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Cooley, seconded by Commissioner Cardenas, to approve. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
5. BLUE FOLDER ITEMS (SUPPLEMENTAL)
Resolutions for Items 10.B and 10.D received.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS – NONE
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
7.A. CONTINUATION OF REMOTE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING THE
MONTH OF MAY 2022 PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 361
7.B. APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: APRIL 19, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL
FIELD TRIP MEETING; APRIL 19, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Planning Director John Signo clarified that staff did not pull Item 9.A, as indicated on the April 19, 2022
minutes; the applicant requested the item be pulled because the property had been sold.
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to approve, with correction to
Item 9.A. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
11
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Page 2
8. EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS – NONE
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS – NONE
10. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
10.A. 2021-2029 DRAFT ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT AND RESPONSES TO HCD’S
COMMENTS
Presentation by Barry Miller, Housing Element Consultant
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Cooley, to submit the draft revision to City
Council for consideration. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
10.B. ZONING CASE NO. 21-16: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RETAINING WALL; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR RECREATIONAL GAME COURT; AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED LOT DIST URBANCE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT
69-A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (RICH)
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to adopt Resolution No. 2022 -
05 approving the project as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
10.C. ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT
SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND CONDUCT
NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-
SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LCC)
Chair Chelf recused himself due to proximity to property and turned the case over to Commissioner Cardenas
to preside.
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Public Comment: Brad Chelf, Leah Mirsch, John Ruzicka
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, directing staff to draft a
resolution of approval for the project as presented and continue the item to the June 21, 2022 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass
NOES: None
12
MINUTES – PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Page 3
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
10.D. ZONING CASE NO. 22-20: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,583-SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE, MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT -HIGH RETAINING WALLS, GRADING, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
FOR A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SETBACK AREA
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE (LOT 33-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(BURGOYNE)
Chair Chelf resumed presiding.
Presentation by John Signo, Planning & Community Services Director
Public Comment: David Palacios, Leah Mirsch
Motion by Commissioner Cardenas, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to adopt Resolution No. 2022 -
06 with the following change to Condition S: strike the final two sentences, starting with, “Landscaping
shall…” through the end of the paragraph. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cardenas, Cooley, Douglass, Chair Chelf
NOES: None
ABSENT: Kirkpatrick
11. OLD BUSINESS – NONE
12. NEW BUSINESS – NONE
13. SCHEDULED FIELD TRIPS – NONE
14. ITEMS FROM STAFF – NONE
15. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION – NONE
16. ADJOURNMENT : 7:40 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be
held on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 beginning at 6:30 p.m. via tele-conference.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
Approved,
____________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
13
Agenda Item No.: 9.A
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
ZONING CASE NO. 21-02: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE
PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK
AREA AND CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11 FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS,
CA (NEVENKA LCC)
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
On May 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip and held an evening
meeting on this item. At the conclusion of the evening meeting, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval and continued the public hearing to June 21,
2022.
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission held a meeting to discuss the location of the
driveway and apron and recommended to the City Council approval with a condition that the
front hedge be removed or trimmed to no more than 24 inches to protect line of sight.
Since the May 17th meeting, the applicant has since revised the retaining wall in the side yard
setback to be a double wall that is five feet high and three feet high. According to the
applicant, this was at the direction of Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) because of
grading concerns in the easement. The double wall will not be visible from the adjacent
easement and will provide pedestrian access to the side of the building. However, the five-
foot-high portion still requires a variance for being in the setback area and 10 feet away from
the property line.
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property located at 11 Flying Mane Road is zoned RAS-1 and has a net lot area of 0.9
14
acre (39,556 square feet). However, for purposes of calculating net lot area, Rolling Hills
Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.16.060(A) indicates that properties less than an acre are
to be considered an acre (43,560 square feet). Only one building pad exists on the property
and is located at the highest portion adjacent to the roadway easement.
The lot is developed with a 5,292-square-foot single-family residence built in 1953. In 1962,
the Planning Commission approved a variance for an indoor swimming pool and structure to
encroach into the required 20-foot side yard setback by eight feet. The pool was constructed in
late 1963. In 1968, the Planning Commission re-approved the variance on a technicality that it
originally expired before the pool was completed.
The existing residence is located 30 feet from the front roadway easement, 10 feet from the
northern side property line, and eight feet from the southern side property line. The rear
property line is located downslope of the building pad over 250 feet to the west. Since the
house was built prior to the City’s incorporation, the front and northern side setback are
considered legal nonconforming; as mentioned, the southern side setback was reduced with
approval of a variance.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant Request
The applicant is requesting a site plan review to demolish an existing 5,292-square-foot single-
family residence and construct a new 5,215-square-foot single-family residence and garage in
a similar footprint. The new residence meets the requirements for reduced setbacks on a
smaller lot. According to RHMC Section 17.24.045, reduced setbacks may apply to properties
in the RAS-1 zoning district that have a lot area of 1.25 acres or less, excluding roadway
easements.
The proposed project includes a 485-square-foot swimming pool, 85-square-foot pool
equipment, 337 square feet of attached covered porches, 15-square-foot barbecue, and 288-
square-foot service yard.
The total structures, excluding exempt structures, is 6,384 square feet or 14.7% of the net lot
area.
The flatwork area, which includes the driveway, paved walkways, patios, and courtyards is
3,338 square feet. This covers 7.7% of the net lot area.
Disturbance covers 12,521 square feet and accounts for 28.7% of the net lot area.
The residential building pad is 8,780 square feet and covers 20% of the net lot area.
A future stable and corral are proposed downslope near the rear of the property and will cover
1,000 square feet. The stable and corral are not proposed at this time.
Grading includes 3,372 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 3,315 CY of fill for a total of 6,687 CY. The
project requires 57 CY of export.
Landscaping includes 13,350 square feet of new and altered areas. The landscape plan is
15
being reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant.
Site Plan Review
The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review (SPR) to demolish the existing residence and
construct the new residence, attached garage, swimming pool, retaining walls, and other
improvements.
Non-exempt grading
The applicant is requesting a total of 6,687 CY of grading, including 57 CY of export. The 110
CY of excavation for the swimming pool is exempt and could be exported from the site without
relief from the Code. Grading will be done on the building pad for the new residence, driveway,
and yard area. Grading includes 2,000 CY of over-excavation and 2,350 CY of recompaction.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls are proposed to the rear (west) of the swimming pool and along the southern
side property line next to the residence, which requires a variance. Retaining walls are also
needed for the stable and corral set-aside area. The maximum height of the retaining walls is
five feet and the average height is not to exceed two and one-half feet.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance for a new five-foot-high retaining wall within
the southern side yard setback. A variance is also requested for grading within the southern
side yard setback for the retaining wall to allow for wider access. Export of 57 CY of dirt is
required.
Variance request to allow a new five-foot-high retaining wall within the side yard setback
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.150(F-G), retaining walls are permitted in setback areas if
they do not exceed three feet in height, do not require grading, and are located along a
walkway; or if they do not exceed three feet in height and are necessary to improve drainage
or prevent slope erosion and are not in an easement, unless approved by the Association.
Such walls must be screened from the public right-of-ways, easements and adjacent
properties with appropriate landscaping.
The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for a retaining wall up to five feet in height to
allow for a wider access to an existing horse trail which has been filled with imported material.
The retaining wall will be located in the side setback approximately 10 feet from the property
line. It extends nearly the full length of the residence. A portion of the wall extends into the
front yard setback, but tapers from 24 inches to six inches toward the front of the property.
Variance request for non-exempt grading
Pursuant to Section 17.16.230, no export or import of cut or fill material shall be permitted in
connection with any grading performed in the City, unless otherwise permitted by the
provisions of Title 15 of the Code. The project does not meet the exemptions in Title 15 in that
grading consists of 6,687 CY total and covers nearly the entire building pad and set aside area
for the future stable and corral. Additionally, 57 CY of export is required.
16
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
Lot Coverage
The proposed structural coverage on the lot will be 6,384 square feet, or 14.7% of the lot,
which is less than the lot coverage limitation of 20% maximum. The proposed total coverage
including structures and flatwork will be 9,722 square feet or 22.3% of the lot area, which is
less than the lot coverage limitation of 35% maximum.
Area of Disturbance
The project site has been previously disturbed due to development of the existing residence.
The proposed project will add 2,124 square feet of disturbance for a total of 12,521 square
feet, or 28.7% of the net lot area.
Access to Future Stable
A stable and corral is not proposed to be constructed, however, a set aside area of 1,000
square feet is included in the rear portion of the property downslope from the main pad.
Access to the set aside area is via a bridle trail along the southern property line approximately
35 feet away.
Swimming Pool
The proposed swimming pool is 485 square feet and located behind the proposed residence
at the edge of the building pad. The pool will be designed to have an infinity edge in which
water flows into a surge basin. The edge of the pool and building pad will be supported by
retaining walls. The pool equipment will be located in a crawl space underneath the master
bedroom. Approval of a swimming pool less than 800 square feet is typically approved
administratively if no discretionary application is involved.
Raised Deck
A raised deck is located next to the master bedroom in the southwestern portion of the
residence. The deck is raised two and one-half feet above finished grade above the retaining
walls. The deck is approximately five feet wide by 35 feet long along the western elevation of
the residence and connects to the pool deck.
Landscaping
There is an existing hedge in the front of the property which helps screen the residence for
privacy. The hedge is entirely on the property with a portion extending into the roadway
easement. It is a policy that hedges not be allowed for new projects. The Planning
Commission should consider if the hedge should be removed.
The Preliminary Landscape Plan shows an olive grove and vineyard in the rear portion of the
property. Two new trees are shown in the front yard next to the street. The Plan is being
reviewed by the City’s landscape consultant for compliance with water efficiency
requirements. The Planning Commission should consider if conditions are necessary to limit
the height of trees to protect neighboring views.
17
Environmental Review
The proposed project has been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment
and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts a
single-family residence, swimming pool, and accessory structures.
Public Participation
None received.
CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
17.46.050 - Required Site Plan Review findings.
1. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a Site Plan Review application.
2. 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:
3. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
4. 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;
5. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
6. 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);
7. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
8. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
9. 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;
10. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
11. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
12. If all of the above findings cannot be made with regard to the proposed project, or cannot
be made even with changes to the project through project conditions imposed by City
staff and/or the Planning Commission, the site plan review application shall be denied.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required Variance findings .
In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following
18
findings:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
4. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
5. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
6. 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
7. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-07 approving Zoning Case No. 21-02 for a Site Plan Review to
demolish a residence and construct a new 5,215-square-foot single-family residence and
related improvements; and a Variance to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the setback
area and conduct non-exempt grading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vicinity Map - 11 Flying Mane Rd.pdf
Development Table (ZC 21-02)_V3.pdf
2022-07_PC_Resolution_11FlyingManeRoad_ZC 21-02.pdf
Traffic Engineer's Memo - M01 11 Flying Mane.pdf
C-City Grading Plan_C(6.6.22).pdf
11 Flying Mane - RHCA - 22 0527-reduced.pdf
19
City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
Zoning Case No. 22-02
Site Plan Review, Variance
OWNER Nevenka LLC
ADDRESS 11 Flying Mane Road, Rolling Hills 90274 SITE
20
*Allowable deductions; excluded from Total Structure Area/Total Structural Coverage
**Future stable not part of project
^Actual net lot area is 39,556 SF but per Code it is rounded to 1 acre (43,560 SF)
Development Table Zoning Case No. 21-02
(11 FLYING MANE ROAD)
Site Plan Review and Variance PAD 1 PAD 2 TOTAL
RAS-1 Zone Setbacks
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 20 ft. from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line
Single family
residence, garage,
pool, equipment,
entryways (SF)
Future Stable
(SF)
Pad/Net Lot Area 8,780 1,000 43,560^
Residence 4,795
Garage 420
Swimming Pool/Spa 485
*Pool Equipment 85
Stable (min. 450 SF) 450**
Attached Covered Porches 396
*Outdoor Barbecue 15
Service Yard 288
Total Structure Area 6,384 450** 6,384
Total Structural Coverage (20% max) 14.7%
Total Flatwork 3,338
Total Structural and Flatwork 9,722
Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) 22.3%
Building Pad Coverage
(Policy: 30% maximum)
72.7% 45%**
Disturbed Area (40% maximum; up to
60% with slopes less than 3:1)
12,521
28.7%
Grading 3,372 CY cut
3,315 CY fill
6,687 CY
57 CY export
21
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 21-02 FOR
A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A
FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND
CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11
FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LLC)
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 Nevenka LLC with respect to real property
located at 11 Flying Mane Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 53-SF) requesting a site plan review to
demolish an existing 5,292-square-foot single-family residence and construct a new 5,215-
square-foot single-family residence and attached garage in a similar footprint, and construct
five-foot-high retaining walls in the rear portion of the building pad and in the side yard setback.
The project also includes a 485-square-foot swimming pool, 85-square-foot pool equipment,
337 square feet of attached covered porches, 15-square-foot barbecue, and 288-square-foot
service yard, which are not subject to discretionary review. A variance is requested for a new
five-foot-high retaining wall within the southern side yard setback and for non-exempt grading
including 57 cubic yards (CY) of exported dirt.
Section 2. The existing single-family residence was built in 1953. In 1962, the
Planning Commission approved a variance for an indoor swimming pool and structure to
encroach into the required 20-foot side yard setback by eight feet. The pool was constructed in
late 1963. In 1968, the Planning Commission re-approved the variance on a technicality that
the original permit expired before the pool was completed.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at its special field trip meeting and regular meeting on May 17, 2022.
Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was
published in the Daily Breeze on May 6, 2022. The applicant and agent were notified of the
public hearings in writing by first class mail and the agent was in attendance at the hearings.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal.
Section 4. On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission held a meeting to review the
shifting of the driveway apron and driveway several feet from the existing location and
recommended to the City Council approval of the proposal with the condition that the hedge in
the front of the property be trimmed to no higher than 24 inches to protect line of sight.
Section 5. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the net lot area excluding the roadway
easement is 0.9 acre (39,556 square feet). For purposes of calculating net lot area, Rolling
22
2
Hills Municipal Code (RHMC) Section 17.16.060(A) indicates that properties less than an acre
are to be considered an acre (43,560 square feet). The project includes an existing 8,780-
square-foot building pad near the front of the property closest to the street. The property has a
lot depth of over 320 feet and slopes downward toward the rear property line. The grade
elevation between the main building pad and the rear property line is over 100 feet. A second
building pad is proposed as a set aside for a future stable and corral near the rear of the
property.
Section 6. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures), which exempts the construction and location of a limited number of new,
small facilities or structures, including single family residence and accessory structures,
including but not limited to garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Here, the
Project includes the demolition of a residence and construction of a new single-family
residence and related improvements. Accordingly, the Project qualifies for the exemption
pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption apply; there is no
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances. The site has already been graded and existing structures are on site.
Section 6. Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review is required for demolition of an
existing residence and construction of a new residence pursuant to RHMC Section
17.46.020(A), for a retaining wall above three feet in height pursuant to RHMC Section
17.16.190(F), and for non-exempt grading totaling 6,687 CY including 57 CY of export
pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020(A). With respect to the Site Plan Review for the
development, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of
the General Plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The proposed development, which includes demolition and construction of a residence
and grading is compatible with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance, subject to the variance
for a new five-foot-high retaining wall within the southern side yard setback and a variance for
grading within the southern side yard setback for the retaining wall to allow for wider access
and export of dirt. The proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low
profile, low-density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures. The new residence will be built on the existing building pad and will have a similar
footprint as the existing residence, which will reduce the visual impact and minimize grading.
The new residence meets the requirements for reduced setbacks on a smaller lot.
According to RHMC Section 17.24.045, reduced setbacks may apply to properties in the RAS-
1 zoning district that have a lot area of 1.25 acres or less, excluding roadway easements. As
such, the new residence will maintain the 30-foot front yard setback of the existing residence.
The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the
lot is 43,560 square feet per RHMC Section 17.16.060(A). The structural net lot coverage is
proposed at 6,384 square feet or 14.7% (20% max. permitted) excluding exempt structures;
and the total lot coverage proposed, including flatwork, would be 9,722 square feet or 22.3%
23
3
(35% max. permitted). The disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be 12,521 square feet or
28.7% (40% permitted).
B. 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.
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the
proposed grading and retaining wall for development will not adversely affect or be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures; the grading and retaining wall allows the
proposed construction to be constructed largely on an existing building pad which enables
proposed project elements to be the least intrusive to surrounding properties. The retaining
wall preserves the existing topography in the adjacent bridle trail easement and eliminates
grading and disturbance in the easement. Further, the grading and retaining wall allows the
proposed construction to be a sufficient distance from nearby residences so views and privacy
of surrounding neighbors will not be impacted. The pool will be behind the residence and not
visible from the street. The pool and patio area are included in the lot coverage. Lastly, the
graded areas will incorporate landscaping and the retaining wall will be screened with
landscaping. The lot will have a main building pad and a stable set aside area and 28.7% of
the lot will be disturbed with the remaining area left landscaped or in a natural state.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences.
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. The development plan takes into consideration the visibility of the project
from Flying Mane Road as it utilizes the existing building pad and has a similar footprint to the
existing residence. The driveway will be moved several feet and repaved to align with the new
garage. The proposed pool will be located at the edge of the pad and retaining walls will be
located behind the residence at the top of the slope. The pool equipment will be located in a
crawl space underneath the residence where it will not be visible. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped or landscaped.
D. 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).
A landscape plan has been prepared to for compliance with water efficient landscape
ordinance requirements and low impact development standards. The landscape plan will
introduce additional landscaping, which will be 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. The grading and retaining wall are designed to preserve
existing topography where possible and mimic the natural terrain.
24
4
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to
minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.
Grading consists of 3,372 CY of cut and 3,315 CY of fill. Export of 57 CY is required and
covered by the variance contained herein. The grading and retaining wall are designed to
preserve slopes where possible and mimic the natural terrain.
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage
flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
Grading will be done to improve the driveway and walkways throughout the site.
Drainage will not change and will follow the natural drainage courses of the lot.
G. 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.
Surrounding native vegetation and mature trees will not be affected and new
landscaping will be considerate of the environment and will enhance the rural character of the
community. Landscaping will provide a buffer or transition between various pads on the
property. As such, the rural character of the community is maintained and privacy is
maintained with neighbors.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety
of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles.
The grading and retaining wall for the project occurs in the side of the property and will
not be visible from the adjacent easement. There is ample parking in the garage and driveway
in the front of the house. An adequate pathway is proposed to safely accommodate
pedestrians from the residence to the backyard and stable set aside area in the rear of the
property. Adequate walkways will be provided to the pool and deck.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
The Project is exempt from the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction and
location of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including single family
residence and accessory structures, including but not limited to garages, carports, patios,
swimming pools and fences. Here, the Project includes the construction of a new single-family
residence, swimming pool, retaining walls, and associated grading. Accordingly, the Project
qualifies for the exemption pursuant to Section 15303. Further, no exceptions to the exemption
apply; there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances. The building pad has already been graded and
existing structures are on site.
25
5
Section 7. Variances. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for
granting variances to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the side yard setback with non-
exempt grading and export of dirt identified in Section 17.16.120, Section 17.16.150(F), and
Section 17.16.230. With respect to the request for variances, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
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.
There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property. The residence was
developed prior to the City’s incorporation and has a legal nonconforming front yard setback of
30 feet which may continue pursuant to Section 17.24.045. However, the small lot size and
location of the building pad near the street are exceptional circumstances applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. A
retaining wall in the side yard setback is warranted in order to maintain the existing topography
and provide emergency access around the residence. The encroachment is considered
minimal given the existing residence already encroaches eight feet into the required side yard
setback. The improvement will enhance the usability of the residence and be compatible with
existing development in the area. Further, a five-foot-high retaining wall with an average height
of two and one-half feet is needed to improve accessibility. The variance is warranted due to
the unique sloping topography that does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity.
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.
Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of property rights on the property. The existing main building pad encroaches into the front
and side setback areas making it necessary for the retaining wall and other improvements to
also encroach. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements.
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.
Granting the variances to encroach into the front and side setbacks will not be
detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity; a retaining
wall and other improvements are allowed in the Rolling Hills community. Further, the project
will be consistent with other development in the area. The new residence is substantially in the
same location as the existing residence to be demolished; the driveway will be relocated
several feet and repaved and the retaining wall will improve access to the side of the
residence.
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be
observed.
26
6
Allowing construction in the side setback will improve access to the side of the
residence and allow the existing topography to remain. The project is harmonious in
scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because
the proposed construction complies with the low-profile residential development pattern
of the community and will not give the property an over-built look. The lot is sufficient
to accommodate the proposed use.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.
The construction in the side setback allows a new single family home similar to
others enjoyed by many properties throughout the City. The project, together with the
variances, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and
programs specified in the General Plan.
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.
Granting a variance for the project will be consistent with the applicable portions of
the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current State of California
Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills.
Granting the variance will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills,
which allows and encourages residential uses and property improvements. It will further the
low-profile residential development pattern of the community and will not give the
property an over-built look.
Section 8. Approval; Conditions. Based upon the foregoing findings, and the
evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 21-02
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 RHMC Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070 unless
otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlements granted by this
resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon
receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject
property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her
designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once
the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In
the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that
a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a
27
7
hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of
the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided
written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of
the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this
Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has
been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work
order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the
Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work
shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other
than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by
the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant’s request or schedule
a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to RHMC
Chapter 17.58 .
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 a variance to such requirement has been approved.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file at City Hall and approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2022
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 a separate sheet and
included in the building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be
kept on site at all times.
Any proposed modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting
from field conditions, shall be discussed with staff so that staff can determine whether the
modification is minor or major in mature. Minor modifications are subject to approval by the
City Manager or his or her designee. Major modifications are subject to approval by the
Planning Commission after a public hearing. The applicant shall not implement modifications
or changes to the approved project without the appropriate approval from the City Manager or
designee or the Planning Commission, as required.
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to Building and Safety Department for
issuance of building and grading 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 herein and the City’s
Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
28
8
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 6,384 square feet or 14.7% 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
9,722 square feet or 22.3% of the net lot area, in conformance with lot coverage limitations
(35% maximum).
H. The disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable and corral area shall not
exceed 28.7%, or 12,521 square feet surface area. Grading for this project shall not exceed
3,372 CY of cut and 3,315 CY of fill with 57 CY of export for a total of 6,687 cubic yards
balanced on site.
I. The residential building pad is proposed at 8,780 square feet and shall not
exceed coverage of 6,384 square feet or 72.7% with allowed deductions. The set aside pad for
a future stable and corral is proposed at 1,000 square feet and shall not exceed 450 square
feet of coverage or 45% with allowed deductions.
J. A driveway access shall be provided per the Fire Department requirements and
the apron of the driveway shall be roughened and the first 20 feet of the driveway shall not
exceed 7% in slope.
K. Access to the set aside area for the future stable and corral shall be decomposed
granite or 100% pervious roughened material; the access route shall not be wider than 12 feet.
L. A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be
paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of all of the proposed structures, or as
otherwise required by the Fire Department.
M. Per LA County Building Code, a pool barrier and/or fencing shall be required for
the pool.
N. 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.
O. 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, and Low
Impact Development requirements for storm water management on site (RHMC Chapter 8.32).
P. All utility lines shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030.
29
9
Q. Hydrology, soils, geology and other reports, as required by the Building and
Public Works Departments, and as may be required by the Building Official, shall be prepared.
R. Prior to issuance of a final construction approval of the project, all graded slopes
shall be landscaped. Prior to issuance of building permit, the landscaping plan shall meet the
requirements of the City, shall be submitted to the City in conformance with Fire Department
Fuel Modification requirements, and shall be approved by the City’s landscape consultant.
S. The project shall be landscaped, and continually maintained in substantial
conformance with the landscaping plan on file approved by the City’s landscape consultant. A
detailed landscaping plan shall provide that any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping
scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that screens the project development from
adjacent streets and neighbors, such that shrubs and trees as they mature do not grow into a
hedge or impede any neighbors views and the plan shall provide that all landscaping be
maintained at a height no higher than the roof line of the nearest project structure. In addition,
the landscaping plan shall provide for screening of the proposed retaining wall with vegetation
not to exceed 10 feet in height, and that the vegetation used for screening shall be planted in
an offset manner, to prevent it, as it grows from forming a solid hedge. The landscaping plan
shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area, are water-wise
and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Plants listed as high hazardous
plants under RHMC Section 8.30.015 are prohibited.
T. The applicant shall submit a landscaping performance bond or other financial
obligation, to be kept on deposit by the City, in the amount of the planting plus irrigation plus
15%. The bond shall be released no sooner than two years after completion of all plantings,
subject to a City staff determination that the plantings required for the project are in substantial
conformance with approved plans and are in good condition.
The landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, (Chapter 13.18 of the RHMC).
Pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the RHMC, the property shall at all times be maintained
free of dead trees and vegetation.
U. The retaining wall shall not exceed five feet in height at any point along the wall
and shall have an average height of two and one-half feet.
V. The setback lines and roadway easement lines in the vicinity of the construction
for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be
required.
W. Perimeter easements, including roadway easements and trails, if any, shall
remain free and clear of any of improvements to advance equestrian use and emergency
preparedness for evacuation within the City. Where RHCA has demonstrated authority over
the easement, the City’s Planning Director may grant relief from this condition upon
satisfactory proof of permission from RHCA and a legitimate showing that there is no need for
the condition to advance equestrian uses and emergency preparedness.
30
10
X. Minimum of 65% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from
landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City’s Construction and Demolition permits for
waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City.
Y. During construction, the site shall be maintained in a safe manner so as not to
threaten the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
Z. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
AA. During construction, to the extent feasible, all parking shall take place on the
project site, on the new driveway and, if necessary, any overflow parking may take place within
the unimproved roadway easements along adjacent streets, and shall not obstruct neighboring
driveways, visibility at intersections or pedestrian and equestrian passage. During construction,
to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. To the
extent feasible, a minimum of 4’ wide path, from the edge of the roadway pavement, for
pedestrian and equestrian passage shall be available and be clear of
vehicles, construction materials and equipment at all times.
AB. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and relate 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.
AC. Prior to demolition of the existing structures, an investigation shall be conducted
for the presence of hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury and
asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). If hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products,
mercury or ACMs are identified, remediation shall be undertaken in compliance with California
environmental regulations and policies.
AD. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for
compliance with the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use
tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning
conditions. Weather conditions can be found at:
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.
AE. Storm water shall drain in accordance with the approved grading and drainage
plan. Drainage dissipaters shall be constructed outside of any easements. The drainage
system shall be approved by the Department of Building and Safety. If an above ground swale
and/or dissipater is required, it shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any
equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and
31
11
shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors’ view to the maximum extent practicable,
without impairing the function of the drainage system.
AF. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from
wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local
ordinances and engineering practices.
AG. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2016 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution.
AH. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and
maintenance of storm water drainage facilities and septic tank.
AI. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Building and Safety and Public
Works Department fees and Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District fees, if any.
AJ. Prior to final inspection of the project, “as graded” and “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 Planning Commission approved
plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted
on the “as built/as graded” plan.
AK. This Resolution’s approvals shall not be effective until the applicants execute an
Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions set forth herein.
AL. All conditions of this Resolution, when applicable, must be complied with prior to
the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department.
AM. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
32
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-07 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 21-02 FOR
A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW 5,215-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A
FIVE-FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SETBACK AREA AND
CONDUCT NON-EXEMPT GRADING ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11
FLYING MANE ROAD (LOT 53-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (NEVENKA LLC)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
33
Memorandum
TO: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: May 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 11 Flying Mane Road
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on
the proposed driveway being requested by the residents of 11 Flying Mane Road. The
proposed driveway will be shifted southerly from the existing location 4-5 feet. The
proposed driveway will have an 18-foot driveway aisle with a 28-foot driveway apron.
On May 18, 2022, a field review of existing conditions was performed to assess the
proposed location and width of the driveway. Based on the field observations and
engineering judgement, the driveway proposed location is acceptable.
34
N 73°11'06" E
326.70'N 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (R
A
D
I
A
L
)
341.34'
20.00'
321.34'
20.00'
306.70'
N 73°06'18" E
(RADIAL)
(RADIAL)
N 61°45'40" E=09°53'19"R=700.00'L=120.81'T=60.56'=09°53'27"R=720.00'L=124.29'T=62.30'N 25°35'54" W103.57'=01°27'19"
R=700.00'
L=17.78'
T=8.89'
FD. 2" I.P. & WOODPLUG, FLUSH, ACCEPTEDPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT R
E
C
.
R
A
D
I
A
L
DIST. (341.34
'
)
F
R
O
M
N
E
PER R.S. 59,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD. 3/4" REB
A
R
,
N
O
C
A
P
,
NO REF., N60
°
3
6
'
0
9
"
W
,
0
.
5
8
'
FROM PROPE
R
T
Y
C
O
R
N
E
R
ESTAB. AT REC. C
A
L
C
.
DELTA (17°27'12"
)
ALONG CURVE FR
O
M
N
W
PER R.S. 59, PGS.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10LEGENDABBREVIATIONS Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C0.030306030LEGENDABBREVIATIONSSHEET INDEXOWNER / CLIENT:CONCEPT GRADING PLAN11 FLYING MANERolling Hills, CA 90275CIVIL ENGINEER / PREPARED BY:35
326.70'
341.34'
20.00'
321.34'
20.00'306.70'N 73°06'18" E(RADIAL)
(RADIAL)
N 61°45'40" E=09°53'19"R=700.00'L=120.81'T=60.56'=09°53'27"R=720.00'L=124.29'T=62.30'=01°27'19"
R=700.00'
L=17.78'
T=8.89'
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.DELTA (17°27'12")ALONG CURVE FROM NWPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
N 73°11'06" E
N 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (
R
A
D
I
A
L
)
321.34'
306.70'N 25°35'54" W103.57'FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
W
O
O
D
PLU
G
,
F
L
U
S
H
,
A
C
C
E
P
T
E
D
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
010102010
Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C0.11010201036
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.DELTA (17°27'12")ALONG CURVE FROM NWPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
ESTAB. AT REC. CALC.
DELTA (9°53'19") ALONG
CURVE FROM NW PER
R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
LEGENDLEGENDABBREVIATIONS 10102010Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C1.137
N 73°11'06" EN 05°58'24" W78.33'N 63°12'59" E (
R
A
D
I
A
L
)
321.34'
306.70'N 25°35'54" W103.57'FD. 2" I.P. & WOODPLUG, FLUSH, ACCEPTEDPER R.S. 59, PGS. 8-10
FD.
2
"
I
.
P
.
&
T
A
G
,
R
E
1
2
2
,
PER
R
.
S
.
5
9
,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
ESTAB. AT R
E
C
.
R
A
D
I
A
L
DIST. (341.3
4
'
)
F
R
O
M
N
E
PER R.S. 59,
P
G
S
.
8
-
1
0
FD. 3/4" REB
A
R
,
N
O
C
A
P
,
NO REF., N60
°
3
6
'
0
9
"
W
,
0
.
5
8
'
FROM PROPE
R
T
Y
C
O
R
N
E
R
LEGENDLEGENDABBREVIATIONS 10102010Bolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C1.238
SECTIONS LEGENDBolton Engineering Corp.
Civil Engineering and Surveying
25834 Narbonne Avenue Suite 210
Lomita, Ca. 90717
Ph: 310-325-5580 Fax: 310-325-5581
PRELIMINARY: FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
C2.039
,3 :22'6+$&&(37('3*6(67$%$75(&5$',$/',67
)5201(3(556 3*6)'5(%$512&$3125()1
:
)5203523(57<&251(5(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*6(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*61
(
1
:
1
( 5$',$/
1
( 5$',$/ 5$',$/ 1
(
5
/
7
5
/
7
1
:
5
/
7
*+,//6686%(17(7$/)&$/,)251,$7<'(6&5,%('(&25'2)/122)) )/<,1*0$1(52$'
:,'(35,9$7(67((7
(::0:0^
)22735,172) ( +20(72%(5(029('/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*322/
352326('6))22735,176725<6)'))(
( 58%%/(:$//672%(5(029(' 1 7$//58%%/(:$//725(3/$&( ( /,1(2) ( '5,9(:$<72%(5(029('
7:7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:)6
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
6<6%
6<6%
5 <6 %
5<6%
7:
7:
7:
7:
7:
)6/,1(2) ( 3$7,272%(5(029('1(:'5,9(:$< 6)
1(:&21&5(7(3$'667(33,1*:$/.:$<
)65(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*+7
0$;+7
5(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*+7
0$;+7
322/685*(%$6,1
7:5(7$,1,1*:$//
/(1*7+$9*(;326('+7
0$;(;326('+7
1(:3$7,2(175<&2857<$5'1257+
6(7$6,'()25)8785(67$%/($1'&255$/
)<6%
($6(0(17
32&+(5(*,21,1',&$7,1*(;7(172)(;,67,1*%8,/',1*3$' 6)32&+(5(*,21,1',&$7,1*)22735,172)352326('1(:6)' 6)&5266+$7&+('5(*,21,1',&$7,1*(;7(172)352326('%8,/',1*3$' 6)/,1(2)522)($9(352-(&7,21
%%4
( 32:(532/(726(59(1(:5(6,'(1&(1(:&21&'5,9(:$<2)1(7)5217<$5'6/23(6/23(6/23(1(:6(37,&7$1.$1'/($&+),(/'
)/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5')/<,1*0$1(5'
$&&(6625<6758&785($7)/<,1*0$1(5'
7:
7:3/$17(5:$//
+(,*+7322/(48,33$'
)6$5&+,7(&785$/$ &29(56+((7$ 6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$0$ ),567)/2253/$1$ 522)3/$1$ ),567)/2255()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$ %8,/',1*6(&7,216$ %8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 352326('(;7(5,25),1,6+(6ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<&29(56+((7$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
3/273/$19,&,1,7<0$3352-(&7$''5(66 )/<,1*0$1(5'52//,1*+,//6&$ 6&23(2):25. 1(:21(6725<6,1*/()$0,/<':(//,1*/(*$/'(6&5,37,21 $66(6625
63$5&(/180%(5 /276,=( =21( &216758&7,217<3( <($5%8,/7 180%(52)6725,(6 ( )/225$5($ 352326(')/225$5($ 5(48,5('%8,/',1*6(7%$&.6 )5217<$5'6,'(<$5'5($5<$5'0$;,080%8,/',1*+(,*+7$//2:(' ( 522)5,'*(+(,*+7 (;,67,1*%8,/',1*3$'$5($ 352326('%8,/',1*3$'$5($ *5$',1*48$17,7,(6 727$/&87727$/),//(;3257$//2:$%/((;3257 322/ /27+5$1&+2/263$/269(5'(6 $& 6)5$69% 635,1./(5(' 6,1*/(6725< 6)6)
21(6725<
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
)',3 :22'3/8*)/86+$&&(37('3(556 3*6)',3 7$*5(3(556 3*6(67$%$75(&5$',$/',67
)5201(3(556 3*6)'5(%$512&$3125()1
:
)5203523(57<&251(5(67$%$75(&&$/&'(/7$
$/21*&859()5201:3(556 3*61
(
1
:
1
( 5$',$/
1
( 5$',$/ 5$',$/ 1
(
5
/
7
5
/
7
1
:
5
/
7
2)817<$%29('(6&5,%(' )/<,1*0$1(52$'
:,'(35,9$7(67((7
(::0:0^/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*322/352326('6))22735,176725<6)'))(
7:7:
7:
1(:'5,9(:$<
1(:&21&5(7(3$'667(33,1*:$/.:$<1(:3$7,2(175<&2857<$5'1257+6(7$6,'()25)8785(67$%/($1'&255$/
5(&(66('/('675,3/,*+7,181'(56,'(2)&21&5(7(3$9(56:$//02817('(;7(5,25'2:1/,*+76$7($&+'22523(1,1* 5()(572(/(9$7,216 322//,*+76ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$0$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6,7(/,*+7,1*',$*5$041
:'
),5(3/$&(
)$0,/<5220/,9,1*5220(175<&2857<$5'*<0678'<0$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+6+2:(5:&0$67(5&/26(7%('5220%$7+32:'(5/$81'5<&+()
6.,7&+(1.,7&+(1',1,1*5220(175<*$5$*(&/26(7%('5220%('5220&/26(7%$7+&/26(7%$7+79322/%$7+
322/)22735,172)(;,67,1*+20(72%(5(029('/,1(2)522)29(5+$1*&29(5('325&+
75$6+<$5'
63$1(:7$//9(+,&/(*$7($BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6.</,*+7$%29(7<3
23(13$7,2
'5,9(:$<9,(:'(&.
6<6%
6<6%
6725$*(
&2$76 7 2 5 $*(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB($6(0(17
5())=5:,1(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB:$7(5),/7(51(:5$,/)(1&($$$$
*/$66*8$5'5$,/
'*67(33,1*6721($&&(663$7+21*5$'(
1,&+(
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
%%4
1257+23(1&251(5),5(3/$&(666666$77,&$&&(66$%29($77,&$&&(66$%29(1(:$(/(&75,&$/6(59,&( ( 32:(532/(1(:3$,17('5(':22')(1&(726&5((175$6+<$5'
7$1./(66+:
5(&(66('$8720$7,&322/&29(55 $,6 ('3/$1 7 (5
5 $,6 ('3 /$17 (5
7:+$//0(&+$1,&$/9(17,/$7,21&$3$%/(2)&)0(;+$867('72(;7(5,25 5 &20%,1$7,21602.($1'&$5%210212;,'('(7(&725+$5':,5(' 5 66<0%2/6/(*(1'ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<),567)/2253/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
352326('),567)/22542
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB23(1
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$$$$$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1257+6721(&/$'0$6215<&+,01(<
/,1(2):$//%(/2:7<3
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<522)3/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
352326('522)352326('522)0$7(5,$/63(&,),&$7,2143
$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$$$$$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB23(1726.<ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<),567)/2255()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$1$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
5()/(&7('&(,/,1*3/$144
*/$66*8$5'5$,/,15(&(66('6+2(32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180*877(5 '$5.*5(< 678&&2),1,6+216,7(5(7$,1,1*:$//6
),1,6+)/225
&21&5(7(7,/(522)'$5.&+$5&2$/&2/256.</,*+77<3;+25,=217$/:22'6,',1*:,7+648$5(*5229(2%8,/',1*3$3(52+55$7(''(16*/$666+((7,1* 3$,17(':+,7( '$5.*5(<32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180)5$0('2256$1':,1'2:67<3:,'(75,0 3$,17(':+,7( 62/,':22')$6&,$ 3$,17(''$5.*5(< )5(()250528*+6721(&/$'',1*$7&+,01(<
&5$:/63$&($&&(66'225 ;
),1,6+)/225
(;7(5,25:$//6&21&(7<3,&$/$//(;7(5,25/,*+7,1*72%(6+,(/'(''2:1/,*+76ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
($67(/(9$7,21
:(67(/(9$7,2145
&21&5(7(7,/(522)'$5.*5(<&2/256.</,*+77<3;+25,=217$/:22'6,',1*:,7+648$5(*5229(2%8,/',1*3$3(52+55$7(''(16*/$666+((7,1* 3$,17(':+,7( '$5.*5(<32:'(5&2$7('$/80,180)5$0('2256$1':,1'2:67<3:,'(75,0 3$,17(':+,7( 62/,':22')$6&,$ 3$,17(''$5.*5(< :22'*$5$*('2253$,17(':+,7(&8672062/,'2$.(175<'225
(4(4
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<(;7(5,25(/(9$7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
1257+(/(9$7,21
6287+(/(9$7,2146
&5$:/63$&( &5$:/63$&(
(175<&2857<$5'/,9,1*5220
322/
685*(%$6,172: 9$5,(6 72: 9$5,(6
322/
685*(%$6,172: 9$5,(6 72:
:$7(5/,1(
72:',1,1*5220)$0,/<5220ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<%8,/',1*6(&7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6(&7,21
6(&7,2147
($6(0(17
&5$:/63$&(/,1(2) ( *5$'(
7:7:
%('5220+$//0$;
3529,'(6/855<6/$%$7&5$:/63$&(7<3,&$/0$67(5%('5220
&5$:/63$&(
0$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<%8,/',1*6(&7,216$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$
6(&7,21
6(&7,21
6(&7,2148
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<'9,(:6$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$ +,//6,'(3(563(&7,9(+,//6,'(3(563(&7,9(675((7)$&$'(49
ɸɺɸɸ*dwII]d=ʍɿɶɶɹɷVʌɹɷɶɻɿɽɿɼɼɾʌ¸ÈÂ˫ØçúʣØʒÈÁ35,9$7(5(6,'(1&(0$<352326('(;7(5,25),1,6+(6$)/<,1*0$1(52//,1*+,//6&$ &21&5(7(7,/(522),1*%<($*/('$5.&+$5&2$/ 62/,':22'6,',1*:,'(+25,=217$/%2$5'6:,7+648$5(*$3$1'0,75('&251(56&87%/8(6721(3$9,1*$7'5,9(:$</$5*()250$77,/(6)5(()250528*+6721(&/$'',1*$7&+,01(<6$7,1$/80,180'225$1':,1'2:)5$0(6723&$67&21&5(7()/$7:25.:,7+(;326('$**5(*$7(685)$&(02817('(;7(5,25'2:1/,*+7650
Agenda Item No.: 10.A
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
ZONING CASE NO. 22-44: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SECOND
MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO RELOCATE THE
DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-FOOT-HIGH
RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 750-SQUARE-FOOT
STABLE AND CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD, CONSTRUCT IN THE FRONT
SETBACK AREA, AND FOR RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A
HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE
LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(CIMMARUSTI)
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Previous Approvals
On July 16, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-13 approving
Zoning Case No. 956 for a Site Plan Review for grading of 6,790 cubic yards of cut and 5,955
cubic yards of fill with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from the excavation of the
basement and pool; to construct a 6,201-square-foot residence with a 3,000-square-foot
basement and 880-square-foot attached garage; to construct a 1,172 square foot swimming
pool; and to construct a not to exceed 5-foot-high retaining wall along the driveway; a
Condition Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800-square-foot guest house; and Variances to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot by 9.9% to up to 49.9%, where
maximum permitted is 40%; and to cover 33.3% of the front yard setback with a driveway,
where the maximum permitted is 20%. The driveway apron was approved by the Traffic
51
Commission. The project also included accompanying administrative approvals to construct
the following: 1) 1,222 square feet of covered porches for the residence; 2) 238-square-foot
entryway for the residence; 3) 40 square foot pool equipment area; 4) 100-square-foot water
feature; 5) 400-square-foot outdoor kitchen; 6) 100-square-foot service yard area; and 7) 337-
square-foot attached porch for the guest house.
On August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021-11 granting a
two-year time extension for Zoning Case No. 956 to July 16, 2023. The time extension applies
to the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances.
On April 19, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-04 approving
Zoning Case No. 21-10 for a major modification to a Site Plan Review to relocate the
residence and ancillary structures 30 feet to the east. The plan also converted the 800-square-
foot guest house to a 1,000-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) eliminating the need for
a CUP. No changes were made to the location of the driveway apron nor to the lot disturbance
of 49.9%.
Zoning, Location, and Lot Description
The property is zoned RAS-2 and excluding roadway easement the net lot area is 137,810
square feet (3.16 acres) in size. The lot is vacant. The existing topography of the project site
slopes down approximately 40 feet from the upper area of Middleridge Lane South to the
lowest portion of the lot.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant's Request
On May 20, 2022, the property owner, Ralph Cimmarusti (Colorado St. Brand Blvd LLC),
submitted a major modification request for the Site Plan Review to relocate the driveway
apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard setback, construct a
new 750-square-foot stable and corral in the front yard, construct in the front and side yard
setback areas, and for non-exempt grading.
The proposed project does not affect the major modification for the relocation of the residence
and ancillary structures approved by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2022.
Site Plan Review
Site Plan Review is required for a second major modification to relocate the driveway apron,
construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls with an average height of two and one-half
feet, and for non-exempt grading of 12,280 cubic yards as identified in Rolling Hills Municipal
Code (RHMC) Section 17.46.020.
Driveway Apron
The driveway apron will be relocated from the northwestern corner of the lot approximately
200 feet to the south, which shortens the driveway length by nearly half. The total driveway will
be reduced from 10,770 square feet to 6,722 square feet, and the portion of the driveway in
the front yard setback will be reduced from 8,500 square feet to 4,452 square feet. This
eliminates the variance request approved under Resolution No.2019-13 since the area of the
driveway in the front yard setback is reduced from 33.3% to 17.4%, which is less than the 20%
52
maximum permitted.
A secondary driveway will extend from the main driveway to the proposed stable and corral.
The secondary driveway will be 10 feet wide and of a permeable material such as
decomposed granite. It will be entirely in the front yard setback.
The City's traffic engineer reviewed the driveway apron and advised that landscaping not be in
the sight triangle, which is defined as the sight distance 222 feet to the east and 180 feet to
the west. This meets and exceeds the 155-foot distance for a 25-mph roadway and 173-foot
distance for downgrades exceeding 9% slope. The traffic engineer's report is attached.
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission reviewed the relocation of the driveway apron and
recommended approval, 4-0, with a condition that safety improvements be included as
advised by the traffic engineer. This includes a restriction that landscaping in the front
easement not exceed 24 inches in height and that the front of the driveway be scored or
roughened for horses.
Retaining Walls
The project includes three sets of retaining walls: a retaining wall at the stable and corral to
support the building pad; a retaining wall adjacent to the driveway and motor court; and a set
of retaining walls at the front of the property to support two existing mature trees. The walls will
have a maximum height of five feet with an average height of two and one-half feet. The
retaining walls will be located in the front yard with the wall supporting the driveway and motor
court and the walls supporting the tree wells located in the front yard setback. A variance has
been requested for these encroachments which is described below.
Grading
The total grading for the project is proposed to be 12,280 cubic yards (CY): 6,140 CY of cut
and 6,140 CY of fill. Grading will be balanced on site. The western portion of the lot includes
961 CY of cut and 752 CY of fill for the driveway; the depth of the cut will be eight feet and the
fill will be six feet. The project includes 1,740 CY of overexcavation and 1,740 CY of
recompaction.
The applicant is proposing to use the excavated dirt to flatten surrounding areas. No dirt will be
exported. Maximizing the amount of fill on the subject property complies with the goals of the
General Plan to balance grading on site. A breakdown of the cubic yards of cut and fill is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Grading
Area of Grading CY of Cut Depth of Cut CY of Fill Depth of Fill Total CY of
Grading
Walls
Driveway
Yard
142
961
230
7.7’
8’
2.7’
224
752
121
3.8’
6’
3.2’
366
1,713
351
53
Main Residence
Basement
ADU
Pool and Spa
128
2,392
191
306
2’
14.3’
7.1’
8.1’
0
0
12
0
0
0
2.2’
0
128
2,392
203
306
Stable 20 1'190 4'210
Pathway to Stable 0 0'430 10.3'430
Slope Grading 1,770 10 4,411 11'6,181
Total (Grading
Balanced on-site)6,140 n/a 6,140 n/a 12,280
Source: Grading calculations provided by applicant
Area of Grading CY of Cut Depth of Cut CY of Fill Depth of Fill Total CY of
Grading
Lot and Building Pad Coverage
Net Lot Area: 137,810 square feet (3.16 acres)
Structural Coverage: 12,147 square feet or 8.8%, excluding exempt structures (20%
max. permitted)
Flatwork (including driveways and walkways): 12,812 square feet or 9.3%
Total Lot Coverage (structures and flatwork): 24,959 square feet or 18.1%, excluding
exempt structures
Total Disturbed Area: 72,646 square feet or 52.7% of the lot (40% maximum permitted;
variance required)
Variance
Zoning Case No. 956 approved under Resolution No. 2019-13 includes variance requests
from Section 17.16.070 for lot disturbance and exceeding the 20% maximum permitted
coverage in the front setback with a driveway. The project will increase the lot disturbance
from 49.9% to 52.7%, thus necessitating a new variance. However, the project will reduce the
driveway coverage in the front yard setback from 33.3% to 17.4%, thus eliminating the need
for a variance since coverage will be less than the 20% maximum permitted.
The project also includes variance requests to construct a stable and corral in the front yard
identified in Sections 17.18.060(A)(2) and 17.18.090(3), construct in the front yard setback
area identified in Sections 17.16.110, and to construct a five-foot-high retaining wall in the side
and front yard setbacks identified in Section 17.16.150(F). Findings to support the variance
requests are included in the resolution.
Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Case No. 956 approved under Resolution No. 2019-13 included a conditional use
permit (CUP) for a guest house. However, the guest house has been converted to an ADU
eliminating the need for a CUP since ADUs are not subject to discretionary review.
54
Pursuant to RHMC Section 17.18.060, the proposed 750-square-foot stable with an attached
300-square-foot covered porch does require a CUP. Findings to support approval of the CUP
are included in the resolution.
Environmental Review
The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3, Section 15303. New construction of a
single-family residence and accessory structures.
Rolling Hills Community Association Review
Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
Traffic Commission Review
On May 26, 2022, the Traffic Commission reviewed the relocation of the driveway apron and
recommended approval, 4-0. At the advice of the traffic engineer, the Traffic Commission
recommended a restriction that landscaping in the front easement not exceed 24 inches in
height and the front of the driveway be scored or roughened for horses.
Public Participation
No written correspondence received.
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.
17.46.50 Required Findings.
1. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally
approve, or deny a site plan review
2. 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:
3. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general
plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 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;
4. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences;
5. 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
55
trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls);
6. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the
amount of grading required to create the building area;
7. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless
such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
8. 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;
9. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of
pedestrians and vehicles; and
10. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality.
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:
1. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan;
2. 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;
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to
accommodate the use and buildings proposed;
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of
the zone district;
5. 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;
6. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required Variance findings .
In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following
findings:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
56
4. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
5. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
6. 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
7. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, discuss the project, and adopt Resolution
No. 2022-08 approving the project as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vicinity Map.pdf
220616_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Development Table.pdf
EARTH-INFO-6-15-22.pdf
Memo from Traffic Engineer 052022.pdf
220512_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Driveway Location Pictures.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-08 - 8MiddleridgeLn_S_ZC 22-44-PROPOSED.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-04 - 8 Middleridge Lane South ZC 21-10-CORRECT.pdf
Resolution No. 2021-11 for Time Ext (ZC 956) 8 Middleridge Ln S.pdf
Resolution No. 2019-13 8 Middleridge Lane South.pdf
ARCH-SITE PLAN-6-16-22 11X17.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Site Plan.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_11x17 Barn Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_CutFill Plans.pdf
220615_8MiddleridgeLnS_ZC22-44_Slope Plans.pdf
57
City of Rolling Hills 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
TITLE
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
Zoning Case No. 22-44
Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance
OWNER Cimmarusti
ADDRESS 8 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE
58
COMPARISON CHART
8 MIDDLERIDGE
LANE SOUTH
2019
PRIOR APPROVAL
2022
PROPOSED PROJECT
RA-S- 2 Zone
Net Lot Area: 137,810 SF (3.16
AC)
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE,
GUEST HOUSE, POOL
AND SPA, FUTURE (SET
ASIDE) STABLE
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, GARAGE, ADU,
POOL AND SPA, STABLE
Building Pad 1 30,600 SF 30,600 SF
Residence 6,201 SF
18.2’ height
6,094 SF
19.5’ height
Garage 880 SF 987 SF
Pool and Spa 1,172 SF 1,172 SF
Pool Equipment 40 SF 40 SF
Guest House 800 SF --
ADU -- 1,000 SF
Stable (450 SF minimum) 450 SF (Future Stable) 750 SF
Attached Covered Porches 1,222 SF 1,522 SF
Entryway, Porte Cochere,
Breezeways
238 SF 238 SF
Attached Trellises -- 244 SF
Outdoor Kitchen 400 SF 400 SF
Water features 100 SF 100 SF
Service Yard 100 SF 100 SF
Basement Area 3,000 SF 4,491 SF
Grading 13,580 cubic yards
(6,790 CY cut / 6,790 CY fill)
12,280 cubic yards
(6,140 CY cut / 6,140 CY fill)
Total Structure Area (20% max) 11,603 SF (8.4%) 12,647 SF (9.2%)
Total Structures (excluding up to 5
legal and up to 800 SF detached
structures that are not higher than
12 ft (no more than 120 SF per
structure per deduction, except for
trellis)
11,103 SF (8.1%) 12,147 SF (8.8%)
Total Flatwork 16,860 SF (12.2%) 12,812 SF (9.3%)
Total Lot Coverage (Structures and
Flatwork) (35% max & with
deductions)
27,963 SF (20.3%) 24,959 SF (18.1%)
Total Disturbed Area
(40% maximum)
68,886 SF (49.9%) 72,646 SF (52.7%)
59
Date 6/15/2022 Address 8 Middle Ridge South
Grading Quantities Cubic Yds.Max. Depth Max. Depth Location
For House(without basement)128 2 SW of Bldg.
Walls 142 7.7 SE of DWY.
ADU 191 7.1 SW of ADU
For Driveway 961 8 SW of SWY.
For yard areas 230 2.7 SW of Pool
For basement excavation 2392 14.3 SW of Basement
Stable 20 1 E of Stable
Pathway to stable 0 0
Slope grading 1770 10 S of DWY.
For pool/spa excavation 306 8.1 SW of Pool
Overexcavation 1740 3 Bldg.+ADU+DWY.+Hardscape
TOTAL CUT
TOTAL EXPORT
For House 0 0
Walls 224 3.8 NW of DWY.
ADU 12 2.2 NE of ADU
For Driveway 752 6 NE of DWY.
For yard areas 121 3.2 NE of Pool
For basement excavation 0 0
Stable 190 4 W of Stable
Pathway to stable 430 10.3 S of Pathway
Slope grading 4411 11 W of Bldg.
For pool/spa excavation 0 0
Recompaction 1740 3 Bldg.+ADU+DWY.+Hardscape
TOTAL FILL
TOTAL GRADING (Sum of total cut and total fill)
Residential pad Other pad
Finished Floor
Finished grade
Finished floor 1013/1014.25 ADU:1015.5
Finished grade 1011.5 to 1016.25 ADU:1014.85
Basement-finished floor 1002/1003.33
Basement-finished well wall 1001.75/1003.08
Existing pad elevations
Proposed pad elevations
GRADING AND EXCAVATION INFORMATION
CUT/EXCAVATION
For other structures:
For other structures:
PAD/FLOOR ELEVATIONS
6140(overexcavation is not included)
0
6140(Recompaction is not included)
FILL
12,280
no ex. Bldg
60
Memorandum
TO: Elaine Jeng, PE, City Manager
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, City Traffic Engineer
DATE: May 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 8 Middleridge Lane South Driveway
This memorandum is in response to the request by the city to review and provide input on the
revised layout for a single 20- foot driveway being proposed by the residents at 8 Middleridge
Lane South. This is a revision to the previously approved layout.
A sight tringle exhibit was submitted for the same driveway location back on October 10, 2018, to
verify sight obstructions and sight distance available from the driveway in both directions. The
sight distance shown is 222-feet to the east and 180-feet to the west which meets and exceeds
the 155-feet for a 25-mph roadway and 173-feet for downgrades exceeding 9% slope.
The revised proposed driveway layout is acceptable, however due to the curvature of road and
parcel terrain, I recommend no foliage and/or landscape higher than 24” be permitted within the
line-of-sight triangle. The limitations are proposed to always maintain the acceptable line of sight
and avoid overgrowth of landscape in the future in both directions. The line-of-sight triangle shall
be laid out on the site plan to delineate the landscape height limitations.
61
8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH – DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Page 1 of 2
Main Driveway
Looking northwest along Middleridge Lane South
(yellow arrows depict edge of driveway apron)
Looking southeast along Middleridge Lane South
62
8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH – DRIVEWAY LOCATION
Page 2 of 2
Looking northeast toward driveway apron
(yellow arrows depict edge of driveway apron)
63
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On July 16, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2019-13 approving Zoning Case No. 956 for a Site Plan Review for grading of 6,790 cubic
yards of cut and 5,955 cubic yards of fill with 835 cubic yards of dirt to be exported from
the excavation of the basement and pool; to construct a 6,201-square-foot residence with
a 3,000-square-foot basement and 880-square-foot attached garage; to construct a 1,172
square foot swimming pool; and to construct a not to exceed 5-foot-high retaining wall
along the driveway; a Condition Use Permit to construct an 800-square-foot guest house;
and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot by 9.9% to up to
49.9%, where maximum permitted is 40%; and to cover 33.3% of the front yard setback
with a driveway, where the maximum permitted is 20%. The project also included
accompanying administrative approvals to construct the following: 1) 1,222 square feet
of covered porches for the residence; 2) 238-square-foot entryway for the residence; 3)
40 square foot pool equipment area; 4) 100-square-foot water feature; 5) 400-square-foot
outdoor kitchen; 6) 100-square-foot service yard area; and 7) 337-square-foot attached
porch for the guest house.
Section 2. On August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2021-11 granting a two-year time extension for Zoning Case No. 956 to July 16, 2023.
The time extension applies to the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and
Variances.
Section 3. On April 19, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2022-04 approving Zoning Case No. 21-10 for a major modification to a Site Plan Review
to relocate the residence and ancillary structures 30 feet to the east and subject to the
time extension to July 16, 2023.
Section 4. On May 20, 2022, the property owner, Ralph Cimmarusti (Colorado
St. Brand Blvd LLC), submitted a request for the Site Plan Review to relocate the driveway
apron, construct maximum five-foot-high retaining walls in the front yard setback,
64
2
construct a new 750-square-foot stable and corral in the front yard, and conduct non-
exempt grading. The request includes a Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and
corral, and Variance requests to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct
a stable and corral in the front yard, construct in the front yard setback, and for retaining
walls for the driveway and two tree planters that exceed a height of 3 feet up to a
maximum of 5 feet in the front yard setback.
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
field trip on June 21, 2022, followed by a virtual public hearing meeting that same evening.
Neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearing and a notice was
published in the Daily Breeze on June 9, 2022. The Applicant and his agent were notified
of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and email and both were in attendance
at the hearing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting
said proposal and from members of City staff. The Planning Commission reviewed,
analyzed, and studied said proposal.
Section 6. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the lot is 3.45 acres in size
excluding roadway easement. For development purposes, the net lot area is 3.16 acres,
(137,810 sq. ft.). The lot is vacant. The lot is long and narrow, having a very long frontage
along Middleridge Lane South. The rear of the lot slopes to a bridle trail that crosses the
lot.
Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the development project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probablity that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 8. The Planning Commission finds that the second Major Modification
to the Site Plan Review that was granted by Resolution No. 2019-13, extended by
Resolution No. 2021-11, and modified by Resolution No. 2022-04 for 12,280 cubic yards
of grading balanced onsite pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020 and for 5-foot retaining
wall along a portion of the driveway pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190 and 17.16.210
do not affect the findings for Site Plan Review. With respect to the second Major
Modification to the Site Plan Review for the increased grading in the additional amount of
40 cubic yards of cut and 40 cubic yards of fill pursuant to RHMC Section 17.46.020 and
5-foot-high retaining walls along a portion of the driveway pursuant to RHMC Section
17.16.190, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact pursuant to
65
3
RHMC Section 17.46.050, which supplement the Site Plan Review findings in Resolution
No. 2019-13 and 2022-04:
A. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The relocation of the driveway apron, retaining walls, and grading comply with the
General Plan requirement of low profile, low-density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintain sufficient setbacks to
provide buffers between residential uses.
The property is unimproved, and therefore a new driveway and building pads must
be created. The balanced grading complies with the General Plan and all requirements
of the zoning ordinance subject to the variances. The grading is necessary to create the
building pads, and a driveway of 20 feet in width with a turnaround area is required by the
Fire Department. The net lot area of the lot is over 3 acres but is constrained by the shape
of the lot, which is long and narrow, having a very long frontage along Middleridge Lane
South. The lot is adjacent to other large lots along Middleridge Lane South.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining walls along the driveway and for the
planter areas comply with the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The topography of the lot and the requirement for a 20-foot-wide driveway dictates the
location of a wall, and other retaining walls for planter areas will preserve existing mature
trees which will benefit the neighborhood character. The walls will be minimally visible
from the street or by any neighbors. The retaining wall supports the General Plan as it will
provide safety to the property owners, reduce the need for additional grading and meet
the building code and Fire Department requirements.
B. 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.
The topography and the configuration of the lot have been considered, and the
proposed project will be constructed on the least steep area of the lot, so that the lot
experiences the least disruption. The lot coverage is 24,959 square feet or 18.1%, which
is below the maximum lot coverage limitation of 35%. The grading for the building pad
leaves the steeper and more densely vegetated areas in their existing state. The project
in general will retain the existing slopes and vegetation. The not to exceed 5-foot-high
retaining walls support the slope along the driveway and the existing mature trees to
reduce the need for additional grading.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences.
The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project is
screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The
66
4
development plan takes into consideration the views from Middleridge Lane South. The
development will be set back from the road so that views from the road will not be blocked.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The development location will be
the least intrusive to surrounding properties, is of sufficient distance from nearby
residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will
allow the owners to enjoy their property without significantly impacting surrounding
property owners. The grading for the building pad leaves the steeper and more densely
vegetated areas in their existing state. The proposed 5-foot-high retaining walls are
necessary to support the slope along the driveway and maintain the existing mature trees
along the street. The walls are harmonious in scale as they will be minimally visible from
the roadway and neighboring properties.
D. 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).
The area of the proposed construction does not contain any native vegetation; part
of the area is flat and through the years has been cleared for fire prevention. There are
several mature trees and shrubs that will be preserved with construction of the retaining
walls and other native vegetation will be planted. A good portion of the lot will remain in
its natural condition as it slopes into the canyon and a bridle trail. This area of the lot will
not be affected by the construction of the project. The building pad for the stable and
corral is created with a cut and fill that will be balanced on site. The resulting slopes near
the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be 3:1 or less with no slopes greater than
2:1 gradient.
The not-to-exceed 5-foot-high and 50-foot-long retaining wall along the driveway
limits preserves and integrates existing topographic features of the site because it follows
the countours of the lot and is required to support the width of the driveway. The retaining
walls along the street will preserve the existing mature trees. It will aid in the design of the
drainage on the property as the run off will travel along the driveway curb and the wall
into a dissipator located near the driveway apron and into the street. This will protect the
building pad and the structure from flooding during heavy rains. The rear of the building
pad will continue draining in sheet flow fashion to the natural drainage course below the
property.
E. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and
to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area.
The building pads are created with grading that parallels the existing topography
and the road. The dirt will be placed in natural appealing curved shape to fill an existing
depression. The resulting slopes near the residence pad and stable pad will mostly be
3:1 or less with no slopes greater than 2:1 gradient. Fill slopes follow Middleridge in a
natural form. There is no grading in the canyon and all drainage courses remain the same.
Runoff will be collected in a managed fashion so as not to flood the property.
67
5
F. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect
drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course.
The topography and hydrology of the lot dictate the location of the development so
that an acceptable drainage design for the property may be accomplished. The project
will not affect any drainage course as the drainage will mimic the existing drainage course;
however due to the introduction of impervious surfaces to the lot the lot runoff will be
collected in a managed fashion, so as not to flood the property.
G. 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.
The project will retain many of the existing vegetation, and add new vegetation
comatible with the rural character of the City. A large portion of the lot will remain
undisturbed and the existing vegetation will remain. A large portion of the area proposed
for construction does not contain any native or mature vegetation as it was cleared for fire
prevention through the years. The development will be screened and landscaped with
additional trees and shrubs. The landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area
between the property and surrounding properties. The retaining walls will not disturb
surrounding native vegetation or mature trees. The retaining walls are minimally visible
from adjacent properties.
H. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe
movement of pedestrians and vehicles.
This is an unimproved lot and a new driveway must be constructed. The relocated
driveway apron shortens the driveway length by approximately half which eliminates
impervious area. The Traffic Engeer has reviewed the driveway and recommends
approval with the condition that landscaping along the roadway be minimized to no higher
than 24 inches. A path for pedestrians is preserved at the street and there is ample off-
street parking due to the Fire Prevention access requirement.
The new 20’ wide driveway, as required by the Fire Department, will be safe for
two cars to drive past each other. There is ample parking in the garages and in the motor
court in front of the house so visitor parking will be contained on site.
I. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
The development project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (new
construction of single-family residence and accessory structures) of the CEQA guidelines.
The Class 3 exemption consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new,
small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence and accessory
structures, including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Here, the
development project includes construction of a stable and corral, relocation of the
driveway apron, and retaining walls and associated grading for purposes of locating and
68
6
constructing such facilities. Therefore, the project meets the Class 3 categorical
exemption under Section 15303. Further, none of the exceptions to the exemption apply.
More specifically, there is no reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. There are no unusual
circumstances associated with the property and no reasonable probability that the
development will have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 9. Section 17.16.040 (A)(6) and Section 17.18.050(A)(1) of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a stable greater than two hundred square with
a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission must consider applications for a
Conditional Use Permit and may, with such conditions as are deemed necessary, approve
a conditional use that complies with the findings in RHMC Section 17.18.060 -
Requirements for stables requiring conditional use permit. The proposed 750-square-
foot stable with an attached 300-square-foot covered porch complies with all
requirements of this section except it exceeds the maximum permitted disturbance, is
located in the front yard, and is constructed in the front yard setback. Variances for those
conditions are being granted concurrently in this resolution.
With respect to the aforementioned request for a Conditional Use Permit from Zoning
Ordinance Section 17.42.050, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan.
The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a stable is consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is
consistent with similar uses in the community, and meets all the applicable code
development standards for a stable, subject to the variances. The propose project is
located in an area on the property that is appropriate to accommodate such equestrian
use.
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.
The propoed 750-square-foot stable and 300-square-foot covered porch are
distanced from nearby residences, as well as not having any impact on the views of
surrounding neighbors. The proposed stable and corral will be 96 feet from the residence
on the subject property and over 100 feet from any neighboring residences, thus
exceeding the 35-foot required minimum distance from a residential structure.
C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and
shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed.
The proposed stable is of similar scale with existing stables in the neighborhood.
The lot is 3.45 acres in size for development purposes. The proposed project site if
sufficiently large to accommodate the proposed use.
69
7
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable
development standards of the zone district
The proposed project requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sections
17.18.050 and 17.18.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed conditional use
complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district subject to the
required variances which are approved herein.
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.
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 this
title.
The proposed stable observes the spirit and intent of the zoning title because it
provides for an equestrian use that is encouraged throughout the City as each property
is required to have a stable and corral or a set aside therefor.
Section 10. Variance. Section 17.38.050 sets forth the required findings for
granting a variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance identified in Section
17.16.070(B), construct a stable and corral in the front yard identified in Sections
17.18.060(A)(2) and 17.18.090(3), construct a stable and corral in the front yard setback
identified in Sections 17.16.110, and to construct five-foot-high retaining walls to support
the driveway and create two tree wells in the front yard setback identified in Section
17.16.150(F). With respect to the requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
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.
There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property in that there are
steep slopes in the rear of the property making it more feasible to develop in the front
yard. The property also has a curvilinear street frontage of over 500 feet creating a much
larger front yard compared to other properties in the vicinity and in the same zone. An
increase in disturbance from is needed to prevent development on steep slopes. Further,
five-foot-high retaining walls with an average height of two and one-half feet are needed
in the front setback to improve accessibility and preserve existing mature trees. The
variance requests are warranted due to the unique sloping topography that does not apply
generally to other properties in the vicinity.
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.
70
8
Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of property rights on the property. The stable pad encroaches into the front
yard and the retaining walls encroach into the front yard setback due to the property’s
unique shape. Other properties in the vicinity enjoy these types of improvements.
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.
Granting the variances to encroach into the front yard setback will not be
detrimental to the public welfare and will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity; a
retaining wall and other improvements are allowed in the Rolling Hills community. Further,
the project will be consistent with other development in the area. Improvements in the
front yard setback will not be 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.
Allowing the variances meets the spirit and intent of this title in that Rolling
Hills is an equestrian community and construction of a stable and retaining walls
would be harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences. The proposed construction complies with the low-profile
residential development pattern of the community and will not give the property
an over-built look. The lot is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use.
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant.
The construction in the front setback allows improvement to a single-family
property similar to others in the City. The project, together with the variances, will be
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the General Plan.
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.
Granting the variances for the project will be consistent with the applicable
portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to
siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The project site is not listed on the current
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Rolling Hills.
Granting the variances will be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills, which allows and encourages residential uses and property improvements. It will
71
9
further the low-profile residential development pattern of the community and will
not give the property an over-built look.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Zoning Case No. 2022-44, a request for a second Major Modification to a Site
Plan Review to relocate the driveway apron, construct not-to-exceed 5-foot-high retaining
walls in the front yard setback, and conduct non-exempt grading to be balanced on site;
a Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable and corral; and Variance requests to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbance, construct a stable and corral in the front
yard, construct a stable and corral in the front yard setback, and for retaining walls that
support the driveway and create two tree wells that exceed a height of 3 feet up to a
maximum of 5 feet in the front yard setback, and hereby amends the conditions of
approval in Section 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-13, dated July 16,
2019, and amended by Resolution No. 2022-04 dated April 19, 2022, to read as follows:
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning Commission on April 19,
2022, as amended by the site plan on file with the City and approved by the Planning
Commission on June 21, 2022, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. All
conditions of the Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 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.
Any modifications and/or changes to the approved project, including resulting from
field conditions, shall be discussed and approved by staff prior to implementing the
changes.
G. The structural net lot coverage shall not exceed 12,647 sq.ft. or 9.2% (w/out
deductions) and 8.8% w/deductions in conformance with the lot coverage limitations; the
proposed total coverage, (structures and flatworks) shall not exceed 24,959 sq.ft.
(w/deductions) or 18.1% and 18.5% w/out deduction in conformance with the lot coverage
limitations.
The proposed residential building pad will be 30,600 sq.ft. with 36.6% structural
coverage-accounting for allowable deductions, and includes the accessory dwelling unit.
The proposed stable and corral pad will be 1,775 sq. ft. with 59.1% structural
coveral.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 52.7%. Grading for this project
shall not exceed 6,140 cubic yards of cut and 6,140 cubic yards of fill balanced onsite.
72
10
AC. The Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this permit pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The
affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution.
Section 12. Except as amended herein and as amended by Resolution 2021-11
and 2022-04, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 2019-13 shall continue to
be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
_______________________________
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, 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.
73
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-08 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 22-44
FOR A SECOND MAJOR MODIFICATION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
RELOCATE THE DRIVEWAY APRON, CONSTRUCT MAXIMUM FIVE-
FOOT-HIGH RETAINING WALLS, AND FOR NON-EXEMPT GRADING;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND
CORRAL; AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL
IN THE FRONT YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND FOR
RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 3 FEET UP TO A
MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 254-
UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (CIMMARUSTI)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
21st, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
PARC
E
L
1
TRAC
T
N
o.
2
6
7
6
9
M.B. 7
9
8/
9
0-
9
1
LACA
M
A
P
N
o.
6
0
LOT 2
5
4
MB 8/1
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHDRIVEWAY
10 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOU
T
H
GUEST
H
O
U
S
E
F.F.=10
1
5
.
5
0
PARCEL 1
TRACT No. 26769
M.B. 798/90-91
LACA MAP No. 60
LOT 254
MB 8/1
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
3
.
3
3
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
GARAGE
F.F.=1013
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
POOL
SPA
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
3
.
0
0
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
4
.
2
5
PA
LW
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHBA
R
N
PA
D
=
9
9
0
.
0
(4
0
'
x
1
5
'
)
60
0
S
F
FE
E
D
(1
0
'
x
1
0
'
)
10
0
S
F
SE
C
T
I
O
N
CUT/FILL LEGEND
EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
10' - 11'
5' - 10'
0 - 5'
-5' - 0
-10' - -5'
-14.3' - -10'
102
PARC
E
L
1
TRAC
T
N
o.
2
6
7
6
9
M.B. 7
9
8/
9
0-
9
1
LACA
M
A
P
N
o.
6
0
LOT 2
5
4
MB 8/1
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHDRIVEWAY
10 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOU
T
H
GUEST
H
O
U
S
E
F.F.=10
1
5
.
5
0
PARCEL 1
TRACT No. 26769
M.B. 798/90-91
LACA MAP No. 60
LOT 254
MB 8/1
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
3
.
3
3
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
GARAGE
F.F.=1013
.
0
0
BASEME
N
T
F.F.=100
2
.
0
0
F.F.=101
3
.
0
0
(RAISED
F
L
O
O
R
)
PAD=10
1
0
.
0
0
POOL
SPA
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
3
.
0
0
F.F.(ABO
V
E
)
=
1
0
1
4
.
2
5
PA
LW
DRIVEW
A
Y
5 MIDD
L
E
RI
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEWAY
6 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTH
DRIVEWAY7 MIDDLE RIDGE ROAD SOUTHBA
R
N
PA
D
=
9
9
0
.
0
(4
0
'
x
1
5
'
)
60
0
S
F
FE
E
D
(1
0
'
x
1
0
'
)
10
0
S
F
SE
C
T
I
O
N
SLOPE LEGEND
0 - 10%
10% - 33.5%(3:1 SLOPE)
33.5% - 50% (2:1 SLOPE)
103
Agenda Item No.: 10.B
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JANE ABZUG, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In 2019 the Governor signed into law several bills that imposed substantial new limits on local
authority to regulate accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units
(“JADUs”) under Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (collectively, the “2019
ADU Laws”). The 2019 ADU Laws went into effect on January 1, 2020. Shortly thereafter, the
City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 364U and 364, which updated the City’s ADU and JADU
regulations (contained in Chapter 17.28 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code) to comply with the
2019 ADU Laws. The Legislature has continued amending the state’s ADU and JADU statutes
on an annual basis.
In September 2020, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 3182 which, among other
things, amended Government Code section 65852.2 to: (1) expand the scenarios under which
the City must allow certain ADUs and JADUs with only a building permit; and (2) provide that
if City does not act on a complete ADU application within 60 days (subject to limited
exceptions), the application is deemed approved. Thereafter, in September 2021, the
Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 345, which requires cities to allow the separate sale or
conveyance of certain ADUs that satisfy the conditions set forth in Government Code section
65852.26. Such conditions include, among other things, that the ADU or the primary dwelling
was constructed by a qualified nonprofit and the ADU is sold to a qualified low-income buyer.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) recently issued
clarifying guidance with respect to local implementation of the 2019 ADU Laws, AB 3182, and
AB 345. Relatedly, as part of the City’s Housing Element update process, HCD reviewed the
104
City’s current ADU ordinance and determined that certain aspects need to be updated to
comply with changes in state law. The proposed ordinance (“Ordinance”) updates the City’s
ADU and JADU regulations to comply with AB 3182 and AB 345, align with HCD’s guidance,
and further increase clarity for the benefit of staff and the general public.
DISCUSSION:
The Ordinance’s amendments to Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”) Chapter 17.28
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Replaced minimum counter (15 sq. ft.) and storage cabinet (30 sq. ft.) size requirements
for JADU kitchens with language requiring counters and storage cabinets to be of a
reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU (RHMC Section 17.28.030(D)).
Replaced language that allowed one converted ADU or one JADU on a single-family
residential lot with language that allows one ADU and one JADU if specified conditions
are met (RHMC Section 17.28.040(A)(1)).
Clarified that the fee for processing ADU applications is not an impact fee (RHMC
Section 17.28.040(B)).
Revised the City’s prohibition on separate sale or conveyance to provide that no ADU or
JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and primary dwelling
except as provided in Government Code section 65852.26 (RHMC Section
17.28.050(D)).
Clarified that all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements
(RHMC Section 17.28.050(G)).
Replaced language limiting an ADU to two bedrooms with language clarifying that there
is no limit on the number of bedrooms (RHMC Section 17.28.060(A)(1)).
Revised the architectural requirements, impact and utility fee provisions to align with
HCD’s guidance on the same (RHMC Sections 17.28.060(I) and 17.28.070).
Additional minor amendments to augment clarity for staff and the general public.
For reference, the redline (Attachment 3) compares this Ordinance’s amended ADU
regulations against the City’s current regulations. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance by a city or county
implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California’s
ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, the
proposed Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance
implements the State’s ADU law.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The ordinance amendment brings the Municipal Code into compliance with State law which
protects the City from legal challenges.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
105
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 2)
amending RHMC Chapter 17.28 regarding ADUs and JADUs; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the proposed Ordinance is statutorily exempt from
review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources section 21080.17.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - 2022-09_PC_Resolution__ADU_Ordinance.pdf
Attachment 2 - 2022-09_PC_Resolution_Exhibit_A_ADU_Ordinance.pdf
Attachment 3 - REDLINE-c1.pdf
106
65277.00010\40107868.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
17.28 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT
FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local agencies to act by
ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”)
and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed
into law a number of bills (“2019 ADU Laws”) that, among other things, amended
Government Code section 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority
to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, in February 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 364U and
364, which updated the City’s ADU and JADU regulations (contained in Chapter 17.28 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code) to comply with the 2019 ADU Laws; and
WHEREAS, in September 2020, the California Legislature approved, and the
Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 3182 (“AB 3182”); and
WHEREAS, AB 3182, among other things, amended Government Code section
65852.2 to: (1) expand the scenarios under which the City must allow certain ADUs and
JADUs with only a building permit; and (2) provide that if City does not act on a complete
ADU application within 60 days (subject to limited exceptions), the application is deemed
approved; and
WHEREAS, in September 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the
Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 345 (“AB 345”); and
WHEREAS, AB 345 requires cities to allow the separate sale or conveyance of
certain ADUs that satisfy the conditions set forth in Government Code section 65852.26.
Such conditions include, among other things, that the ADU or the primary dwelling was
constructed by a qualified nonprofit and the ADU is sold to a qualified low-income buyer;
and
107
65277.00010\40107868.1
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(“HCD”) recently issued guidance with respect to local implementation of the 2019 ADU
Laws, AB 3182, and AB 345; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local ADU ordinance to keep it in
compliance with the recent changes in state law and HCD’s guidance on the same; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance, which would amend the City’s
Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (“JADU”)
regulations set forth in Chapter 17.28 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code to comply with
recent changes in state law and add further clarity for the benefit of staff and the general
public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with
the proposed ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17,
the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an
ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the
Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as
defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that adoption of
the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance
implements the state’s ADU law.
Section 3. General Plan. This Ordinance is, as a matter of law, consistent with
the City’s General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(C).
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt
the proposed ordinance and code amendments that are attached as Exhibit “A” hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the
Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its
adoption.
108
65277.00010\40107868.1
Page 3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, 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 Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
109
65277.00010\40107868.1
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-09 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND
FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
110
65277.00010\40106466.1
ORDINANCE NO. 376
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE ROLLING
HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND FINDING
THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Law authorizes local agencies to act by
ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”)
and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed
into law a number of bills (“2019 ADU Laws”) that, among other things, amended
Government Code section 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority
to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, in February 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 364U and
364, which updated the City’s ADU and JADU regulations (contained in Chapter 17.28 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code) to comply with the 2019 ADU Laws; and
WHEREAS, in September 2020, the California Legislature approved, and the
Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 3182 (“AB 3182”); and
WHEREAS, AB 3182, among other things, amended Government Code section
65852.2 to: (1) expand the scenarios under which the City must allow certain ADUs and
JADUs with only a building permit; and (2) provide that if City does not act on a complete
ADU application within 60 days (subject to limited exceptions), the application is deemed
approved; and
WHEREAS, in September 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the
Governor signed into law, Assembly Bill 345 (“AB 345”); and
WHEREAS, AB 345 requires cities to allow the separate sale or conveyance of
certain ADUs that satisfy the conditions set forth in Government Code section 65852.26.
Such conditions include, among other things, that the ADU or the primary dwelling was
constructed by a qualified nonprofit and the ADU is sold to a qualified low-income buyer;
and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(“HCD”) recently issued guidance with respect to local implementation of the 2019 ADU
Laws, AB 3182, and AB 345; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance updates the City’s ADU and JADU regulations to
111
65277.00010\40106466.1
Ordinance No. 376
Page 2
2
comply with AB 38182 and AB 345, align with HCD’s guidance, and further increase clarity
for the benefit of staff and the general public; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the City gave public notice of a Planning
Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its
adoption; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022 the City gave public notice of a City Council public
hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports
prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed
therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by this reference.
Section 2. CEQA. Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to the adoption of an
ordinance by a city or county implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the
Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as
defined by section 65852.22. Therefore, the proposed ordinance is statutorily exempt
from CEQA in that the proposed ordinance implements the State’s ADU law.
Section 3. General Plan. This Ordinance is, as a matter of law, consistent with
the City’s General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)(C).
Section 4. Code Amendments. Chapter 17.28 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days following its
112
65277.00010\40106466.1
Ordinance No. 376
Page 3
3
adoption.
Section 6. Submittal to HCD. The City Clerk shall submit a copy of this Ordinance
to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.
Section 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute
the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s
office located at 2 Portuguese Bend Rd, Rolling Hills, CA 90274. The custodian of these
records is the City Clerk.
Section 8. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any
reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council hereby declares that they would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once within 15 days of
adoption in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of
Rolling Hills, and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and
against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with California Government
Code section 36933.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Rolling Hills
California, on the _____ day of ___________ 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City of Rolling Hills
________________________________
James Black, M.D., Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
113
65277.00010\40106466.1
Ordinance No. 376
Page 4
4
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
114
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 1 of 10
Chapter 17.28 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS
Sections:
17.28.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior
accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code sections
65852.2 and 65852.22.
17.28.020 Effect of conforming.
An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this section will not be:
A. Deemed to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning designation for
the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
B. Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is
located.
C. Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit
residential growth.
D. Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in Section
17.28.030(G) below. This does not prevent the City from enforcing compliance
with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code
section 17980.12.
17.28.030 Definitions.
As used in this section, terms are defined as follows:
A. "Accessory dwelling unit" or "ADU" means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An
accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
1. An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and
Safety Code; and
2. A manufactured home, as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
B. "Accessory structure" means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a
dwelling located on the same lot.
C. "Complete independent living facilities" means permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or
multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
D. "Efficiency kitchen" means a kitchen that includes eachall of the following:
115
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 2 of 10
1. A cooking facility with appliances.
2. A food preparation counter or counters that total at least fifteen square feet in
areaand storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of
the JADU.
3. Food storage cabinets that total at least thirty square feet of shelf space.
E. "Junior accessory dwelling unit" or "JADU" means a residential unit that:
1. Is no more than five hundred square feet in size,
2. Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family dwelling,
3. Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with
the existing or proposed single-family dwelling, and
4. Includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in subsection D above.
F. "Living area" means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements
and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure.
G. "Nonconforming zoning condition" means a physical improvement on a property that
does not conform with current zoning standards.
H. "Passageway" means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a
street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
I. "Proposed dwelling" means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that
meets the requirements for permitting.
J. "Public transit" means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station,
where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation
that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public.
K. "Tandem parking" means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in
any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
17.28.040 Approvals.
The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:
A. Building-permit Only. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general
requirements in Section 17.28.050 below, it is allowed with only a building permit
in the following scenarios:
1. Converted on Single-family Lot: Only oneOne ADU oras described in this
subsection (A)(1) and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-
family dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
(a) Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling;
within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or
within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to one
hundred fifty additional square feet if the expansion is limited to
accommodating ingress and egress.; and
116
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 3 of 10
(b) Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family
dwelling.; and
(c) Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated
by applicable building and fire codes.
2. Limited Detached on Single-family Lot: One detached, new- construction
ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in
addition to any JADU that might otherwise be established on the lot under
subsection (A)(1) above), if the detached ADU satisfies each of the
following limitations:
(a) The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four-feet.
(b) The total floor area is eight hundred square feet or smaller.
(c) The peak height above grade is sixteen feet or less.
3. Converted on Multifamily Lot: MultipleOne or more ADUs within portions
of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable
space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms,
passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU
complies with state building standards for dwellings. AtUnder this
subsection (A)(3), at least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing
multifamily dwelling. The maximum number of converted ADUs allowed
within an existing multifamily dwelling structure is equal to twenty-five, up
to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.
4. Limited Detached on Multifamily Lot: No more than two detached ADUs
on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling if each detached ADU
satisfies both of the following limitations:
(a) The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four-feet.
(b) The peak height above grade is sixteen feet or less.
B. ADU Permit.
1. Except as allowed under subsection (A) above, no ADU may be created
without a building permit and an ADU permit in compliance with the
standards set forth in Section 17.28.050 and Section 17.28.060.
2. The City may charge aan application fee, adopted by resolution of the City
Council, to reimburse it for costs incurred in processing ADU permits,
including the costs of adopting or amending the City's ADU ordinance. The
ADU-permit processing fee is determined by the Director of Planning and
Community Services and approved by the City Council by resolution..
C. Process and Timing.
1. An ADU permit is considered and approved ministerially, without
discretionary review or a hearing.
2. The City must act on an application to create an ADU or JADU within sixty
days from the date that the City receives a completed application,. If the
117
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 4 of 10
City does not act upon the completed application within sixty days, the
application is deemed approved unless either:
(a) The applicant requests a delay, in which case the sixty-day time
period is tolled for the period of the requested delay, or
(b) In the case of a JADU and theWhen an application to create a junior
accessory dwelling unitan ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit
application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the
City may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or
JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new
single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or
JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary
review or a hearing.
17.28.050 General ADU and JADU requirements.
The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Section
17.28.040(A) or (B):
A. Zoning.
1. An ADU or JADU subject only to a building permit under Section
17.28.040(A) may be created on a lot in a residential or mixed-use zone.
2. An ADU or JADU subject to an ADU permit under Section 17.28.040(B)
may be created on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family dwelling
residential use or multifamily dwelling residential use.
B. Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in
the primary residence.
C. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than thirty
days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.
D. No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but, except as
otherwise provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, no ADU or JADU may
be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in
the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case
of a multifamily lot).
E. Owner Occupancy.
1. All ADUs createdpermitted before January 1, 2020, are subject to the
owner-occupancy requirement that was in place when the ADU was
created.
2. An ADU that is createdpermitted after that date but before January 1, 2025,
is not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
3. All ADUs that are createdpermitted on or after January 1, 2025, are subject
to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or
equitable title to the property must reside on the property as the person's
legal domicile and permanent residence.
118
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 5 of 10
4. All JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural
person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the
property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person's legal
domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy
requirement of this paragraph does not apply if the property is entirely
owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.
F. Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a
deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County
Recorder's office and a copy filed with the Director. The deed restriction must run
with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be
provided by the City and must provide that:
1. TheExcept as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 65852.26,
the ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling.
2. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes
allowed by this section.
3. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future
property owners.
4. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or
JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To
remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the
Director, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been
eliminated. The Director may then determine whether the evidence supports
the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken
from the Director's determination consistent with other provisions of this
Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only
eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU
removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise
comply with applicable provisions of this Code.
5. The deed restriction is enforceable by the Director or his or her designee for
the benefit of the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the
deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and
the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity,
including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of
the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of
the illegal unit.
G. Building & Safety. All ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code
requirements.
17.28.060 Specific ADU requirements.
The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU permit under Section
17.28.040(B).
119
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 6 of 10
A. Maximum Size.
1. The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this Section
17.28.060 is eight hundred fifty square feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit
and one thousand square feet for a unit with two or more bedrooms. No
more than two bedrooms are allowed.
2. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling
is further limited to fifty percent of the floor area of the existing primary
dwelling, subject to Section 17.28.060subsection (A)(3) below.
3. Application of other development standards in this Section 17.28.060, such
as FAR or lot coverage, might further limit the size of the ADU, but no
application of athe percentage-based size restriction,limit in subsection
(A)(2) above, or of an FAR, lot coverage, limit or open-space requirement
may require the ADU to be smaller than eight hundred square feet.
B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). No ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may cause the
total FAR of the lot to exceed forty-five percent, subject to Section 17.28.060(A)(3)
above.
C. Setbacks.
1. No part of any ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may be located within
thirty feet of the front property line.
2. No part of any ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may be located
within four feet of a side or rear property line.
D. Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may cause the total lot
coverage of the lot to exceed fifty percent, subject to Section 17.28.060(A)(3)
above.
E. Minimum Open Space. No ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may cause the
total percentage of open space of the lot to fall below fifty percent, subject to
subsection Section 17.28.060(A)(3) above.
F. Height. No ADU subject to this Section 17.28.060 may exceed sixteen feet in height
above grade, measured to the peak of the structure.
G. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by Section 17.28.030(H) above, is
required for an ADU.
H. Parking.
1. Generally. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The
parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, as
defined by Section 17.28.030(K) above.
2. Exceptions. No parking under Section 17.28.060(H)(1) is required in the
following situations:
(a) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public
transit, as defined in subsection Section 17.28.030(J) above.
120
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 7 of 10
(b) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically
significant historic district.
(c) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an
accessory structure under Section 17.28.040(A)(1) above.
(d) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the
occupant of the ADU.
(e) When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within
one block of the ADU.
3. No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is
demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to
an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
I. Architectural Requirements.
1. The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, and windows and doors
must match the appearance and architectural design of those of the primary
dwelling.
2. The roof slope must match that of the dominant roof slope of the primary
dwelling. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion
of the roof.
3. The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or as otherwise
required by the building or fire code.
4. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of
the primary dwelling. The ADU entrance must be located on the side or rear
building façade, not facing a public-right-of-way.
5. The interior horizontal dimensions of an ADU must be at least ten feet wide
in every direction, with a minimum interior wall height of seven feet.
6. Windows and doors of the ADU may not have a direct line of sight to an
adjoining residential property. Fencing, landscaping or privacy glass may
be used to provide screening and prevent a direct line of sight to contiguous
residential property.
7. All windows and doors that are less than thirty feet from a property line that is
not a right-of-way line must either be (for windows) clerestory with the
bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor, (for windows
and for doors) utilize frosted or obscure glass, or (for doors) opaque.
7. 8. The architectural treatment of an ADU to be constructed on a lot that has
an identified historical resource listed on the federal, state, or local register
of historic placesCalifornia Register of Historic Resources must comply
with all applicable ministerial requirements imposed by the Secretary of
Interior.
J. Landscape Requirements.
121
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 8 of 10
1. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between the
ADU and adjacent parcels as follows:
(a) At least one, fifteen-gallon size plant shall be provided for every five
linear feet of exterior wall. Alternatively, at least one 24" box size
plant shall be provided for every ten linear feet of exterior wall.
(b) Plant specimens for screening must be at least eight feet tall when
installed. As an alternative, a solid fence of at least eight feet in
height may be installed.
2. All landscaping must be drought-tolerant.
3. All landscaping must be from the City's approved plant list.
K. Historical Protections. An ADU that is subject to this Section 17.28.060 and that is
on or within six hundred feet of real property that is listed in the California Register
of Historic Resources is subject to all the objective standards imposed by the
Secretary of Interior.
17.28.070 Fees.
The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Section
17.28.040(A) or Section 17.28.040(B).
A. Impact Fees.
1. No impact fee is required for an ADU or JADU that is less than seven
hundred fifty square feet in size. For purposes of this Section 17.28.070,
“impact fee” means a “fee” under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §
66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Gov. Code § 66477). “Impact
fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water
or sewer service.
2. Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is seven hundred fifty
square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to
the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. (E.g., the floor area of the
primary dwelling,ADU divided by the floor area of the ADUprimary
dwelling, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling.) "Impact
fee" here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water
or sewer service.
B. Utility Fees.
1. If an ADU is constructed with a new single-family home, a separate utility
connection directly between the ADU and the utility and payment of the
normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required.
2. 1. ConvertedExcept as described in subsection 17.28.070(B)(1), converted
ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot, that are created under Section
17.28.040(A)(1) above, are not required to have a new or separate utility
connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility. Nor is a
122
65277.00010\40096605.140096605.2
Page 9 of 10
connection fee or capacity charge required unless the ADU or JADU is
constructed with a new single-family home.
2. AllExcept as described in Section 17.28.070(B)(1), all ADUs and JADUs not
covered by Section 17.28.070(B)(12) above require a new, separate utility
connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility.
(a) The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that
is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU or JADU, based
on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units
(DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the
water or sewer system.
(b) The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the City may not
exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
17.28.080 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.
Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards set forth in Section
17.28.010 through Section 17.28.070 of this chapter may be allowed by the City with a conditional
use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.
123
Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.1.0.69 Document comparison done on
5/24/2022 1:53:40 PM
Style name: Default Style
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Original filename: Exhibit A - Updated ADU Ordinance (May 2022).docx
Modified filename: Exhibit A - Updated ADU Ordinance (May 2022)v2
(2).docx
Changes:
Add 70
Delete 62
Move From 0
Move To 0
Table Insert 0
Table Delete 0
Table moves to 0
Table moves from 0
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.) 0
Embedded Excel 0
Format changes 0
Total Changes: 132
124
Agenda Item No.: 10.C
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING
EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND
FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation of certain residential
uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing. State law generally defines
each use follows:
Employee Housing: refers to privately-owned housing that houses five or more
employees and meets specified criteria (e.g., the living quarters are provided in
connection with employment). (see Health and Safety Code, § 17008(a)).
Supportive Housing : refers to housing that is occupied by an homeless individual or
family with no limit on the length of stay and that is linked to onsite or offsite services.
(see Gov. Code, § 65650(a)).
Transitional Housing: refers to rental housing operated under program requirements that
require termination of assistance and recirculating the unit to another recipient at a
predetermined future date that is not less than six months from the beginning of the
assistance. (see Gov. Code, § 65582(j)).
The proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”) updates the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to clarify that the City permits these uses as required by State law.
DISCUSSION:
125
As required by State law, the Ordinance amends the RHMC to:
Add definitions for “employee housing,” “supportive housing,” and “transitional housing”
to the Zoning Code’s “Definitions” provided in Chapter 17.12 of the RHMC.
Specify that for purposes of the RHMC, “employee housing,” “supportive housing,” and
“transitional housing” have the same meaning as defined under State law.
Indicate that employee housing (with a permit from the statutory enforcement agency) to
serve six or fewer employees is considered a single-family residential structure.
The Ordinance specifies that the “statutory enforcement agency” refers to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) unless and until the
City of Rolling Hills or the County of Los Angeles assume responsibility for
enforcing the Employee Housing Act under Health and Safety Code Section 17050.
Clarify that no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance will be
required for employee housing serving six or fewer employees unless the same is
required for a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.
Specify that “supportive housing” and “transitional housing” are considered residential
uses of property and subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings
of the same type in the same zone.
Clarify that “supportive housing” is a use by right in all zones where multifamily and
mixed uses are permitted.
The Ordinance’s amendments to the RHMC are mandated by State law. For these reasons,
staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider and recommend that the City
Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a
project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from
CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
15061(b)(3)).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 2)
amending various sections of the RHMC to ensure consistency with State law
regarding employee, supportive, and transitional housing; and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3),
and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations,
126
Title 14, Chapter 3).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-10_Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 377-Employee_Supportive_Transitional_Housing.pdf
127
65277.00010\40131166.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING EMPLOYEE,
SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND FINDING
THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation
of certain residential uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance, which would amend various
provisions of the RHMC to clarify that the City permits employee, supportive, and
transitional housing as required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with
the proposed ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that adoption of the
proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is
not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this
ordinance is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).)
128
65277.00010\40131166.1
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. General Plan. The proposed ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s
adopted General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s
Implementation Program No. 8—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal
Code to add definitions for employee, supportive, and transitional housing.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt of
the proposed ordinance and code amendments that are attached as Exhibit “A” hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the
Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, 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 Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
129
65277.00010\40131166.1
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW
REGARDING EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
130
ORDINANCE NO. 377
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENSURE
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING
EMPLOYEE, SUPPORTIVE, AND TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT
FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation,
duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of Califo rnia; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the State of California has preempted local regulation
of certain residential uses, including employee, supportive, and transitional housing; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code to ensure that the City’s regulation of the above mentioned uses is clear and in
accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the City gave public notice of a Planning
Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its
adoption; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022 the City gave public notice of a City Council public
hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022, the City Council held a dul y-noticed public hearing
to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports
prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed
therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby
adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.
131
2
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as
defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt
from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3).)
SECTION 3. General Plan. This Ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 8—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to add
definitions for employee, supportive, and transitional housing.
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.050 (“E” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definit ion for
“Employee housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Employee housing” has the same meaning as in California Health and
Safety Code Section 17008(a), as that section is amended from time to
time.
SECTION 5. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.109 (“S” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definition for
“Supportive housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Supportive housing” has the same meaning as in California Government
Code Section 65650(a), as that section is amended from time to time.
SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Section 17.12.200 (“T” words, terms and
phrases) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a definition for
“Transitional housing,” to read in its entirety as follows:
“Transitional housing” has the same meaning as in California Government
Code Section 65582(j), as that section is amended from time to time.
SECTION 7. Code Amendment. Section 17.16.250, entitled “Employee,
Supportive, and Transitional Housing,” is hereby added to the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
“Section 17.16.250 – Employee, Supportive, and Transitional Housing
A. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
10721.5, subdivision (b):
132
3
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
1. Employee housing with a permit from the statutory
enforcement agency to serve six or fewer employees is
considered a single-family residential structure.
2. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning
clearance is required for employee housing serving six or
fewer employees unless the same is required for a family
dwelling of the same type in the same zone.
3. In accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section
17007, for purposes of this subsection (A), “statutory
enforcement agency” refers to the Department of Housing and
Community Development unless and until the City of Rolling
Hills or the County of Los Angeles assume responsibility for
enforcing the Employee Housing Act under Health and Safety
Code Section 17050.
B. Supportive housing is a use by right in all zones where multifamily
and mixed uses are permitted, in accordance with Government Code
Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 11 (commencing with Section
65650).
C. Transitional housing and supportive housing are each considered a
residential use of property and are subject to those restrictions that
apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same
zone, in accordance with Government Code Section 65583,
subdivision (c)(3).”
SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision
hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance despite any partial invalidity.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its
passage and adoption in accordance with California Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 10. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance ; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this XX day of MONTH, 2022.
133
4
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
134
5
ORDINANCE NO. 377
Employee Supportive Transitional Housing
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 377 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Rolling Hills held on the XX day of Month, YEAR, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
135
Agenda Item No.: 10.D
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Senate Bill (SB) 234 prohibits cities from requiring any Family Child Care Home licensed by
the Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, large or small as
defined in Health and Safety Code 1596.78, from having to obtain a land use/zoning permit
and/or business license for their operation. Health and Safety Code section 1597.45 now
states that Large Family Child Care Homes (caring for up to 14 children) shall be treated the
same as Small Family Child Care Homes (caring for up to 8 children) under all local laws.
Cities must now consider the operation of a Large Family Child Care Home as a residential
use of property by right, just as they have historically been required to treat Small Family Child
Care Homes as residential property uses by right.
DISCUSSION:
The enclosed Ordinance amends Section 17.19.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, which
previously provided that homes in the Rancho Del Mar Housing Opportunity Zone were
required to get a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) before operating a day care home. This is no
longer permitted by SB 234, so the enclosed Ordinance removes the requirement to get a
CUP. Staff worked with the City Attorney’s office to draft the ordinance, which amends the
Municipal Code so that the City is in compliance with SB 234’s requirements.
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS:
136
The Planning Commission’s recommendation that the City Council adopt the proposed
Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed
adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment, primarily because the
amendment removes the requirement for a use permit for large family day care homes, and
regardless of the use permit requirement, state law already establishes that CEQA does not
apply to either large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15274 and
California Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the action on the Ordinance is not
anticipated to have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State has already decided
that CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 2022-11 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend
Section 17.19.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code relating to family day care homes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-11_Family_Day_Care_Homes.pdf
Attached 2 - Ordinance No. 378_Family_Day_Care__Homes.A.pdf
137
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030 OF THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, Governor Newsom signed SB 234 (Skinner, Chapter 244) into law,
amending the Health and Safety Code relating to family daycare homes, including
requiring all local ordinances t o treat family daycare homes as a residential use of
property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(a), a small or
large family daycare home shall be considered a residential use of property by right for
purposes of all City ordinances, including zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(b), cities cannot
impose a business license, fee, or tax on a small or large family daycare home; and
WHEREAS, the use of a home as a small or large family daycare home does not
constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of the State Housing Law or local building
codes; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(a) defines a “family daycare
home” to mean a “facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14
or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day,
while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family daycare home or a
small family daycare home”; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(b) defines a “large family
daycare home” as a facility that provides care, protection, and supervision for 7 to 14
children…” and section 1596.78 defines a “small family daycare home” as a facility that
provides care, protection, and supervision for eight or fewer children…”; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance will bring the City’s Zoning Code into
compliance with the changes made to family child day care home law pursuant to SB 234
by removing and amending certain regulations for small and large family child care homes
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance proposed for adoption by the City Council will result in
the amendment of certain zoning provisions within the Rolling Hills Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65853 et seq. requires the Rolling Hills
Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) to hold a public hearing and render a
written recommendation to the City Council prior to its adoption of an ordinance that
amends zoning provisions within the Municipal Code; and
138
2
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 21, 2022
to consider the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this purpose, and to
accept public testimony regardi ng this proposed zoning update.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference as findings in support of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this
Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”),
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that the
proposed adoption will not have a significant effect on the environment, primarily because
the amendment removes the requirement for a use permit for large family day care
homes, and regardless of the use permit requirement, state law already establishes that
CEQA does not apply to either large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA
Guideline 15274 and California Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the action on this
Ordinance is not anticipated to have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State
has already decided that CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
Section 3. General Plan. The Planning Commission finds that this
Ordinance is, as a matter of law, consistent with the City’s General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 1597.45.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt
a proposed ordinance that amends Subdivision E. of Section 17.19.030 to read as follows
“E. Daycare;” and accordingly the requirement for daycares to obtain a conditional use
permit is stricken.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
________________________________
Brad Chelf, Chair
ATTEST:
__________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
139
3
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing
on this application must be filed within th e time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
140
4
Resolution 2022-11
Family Day Care Homes
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022 -11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.19.030
OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FAMILY
DAY CARE HOMES.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
21st, 2022 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
141
ORDINANCE NO. 378
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION
17.19.030 OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
WHEREAS, Governor Newsom signed SB 234 (Skinner, Chapter 244) into law,
amending the Health and Safety Code relating to family daycare homes, including
requiring all local ordinances to treat family daycare homes as a residential use of
property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(a), a small or
large family daycare home shall be considered a residential use of property by right for
purposes of all City ordinances, including zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1597.45(b), the City
cannot impose a business license, fee, or tax on a small or large family daycare home;
and
WHEREAS, the use of a home as a small or large family daycare home does not
constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of the State Housing Law or local building
codes; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(a) defines a “family daycare
home” to mean a “facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14
or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day,
while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family daycare home or a
small family daycare home”; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code section 1596.78(b) defines a “large family
daycare home” as a facility that provides care, protection, and supervision for 7 to 14
children…” and section 1596.78 defines a “small family daycare home” as a facility that
provides care, protection, and supervision for eight or fewer children…”; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance will bring the City’s Zoning Code into
compliance with the changes made to family child day care home law pursuant to SB 234
by removing and amending certain regulations for small and large family child care homes
in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June
21, 2022, to consider making a recommendation to the City Council on making the
proposed changes to the zoning chapter of the City’s Municipal Code, and voted in favor
of making such a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on [insert date], at
which time all interested persons were allowed to address the City Council rega rding
adoption of this ordinance; and
142
2
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct
and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 2. CEQA. The City Council’s adoption of this Ordinance is not a project
subject to the California Environmental Qu ality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline
15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed adoption will not have a
significant effect on the environment, primarily because the amendment removes the
requirement for a use permit for large family da y care homes, and regardless of the use
permit requirement, state law already establishes that CEQA does not apply to either
large or small family day care homes pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15274 and California
Health & Safety Code 1597.45(d). Thus, the Cit y Council’s action is not anticipated to
have any impact under CEQA primarily because the State has already decided that
CEQA does not apply to large or small family day care homes.
Section 3. Section 17.19.030 Amended. Subdivision E. of Section 17.19.030,
which reads “E. Daycare*;” is hereby amended to read “E. Daycare;” and accordingly the
requirement for daycares to obtain a conditional use permit is stricken .
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any
reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The people of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declare that they would have
adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase ther eof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30
days after the date of its passage and adoption.
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance .
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this XX day of MONTH, 2022.
143
3
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
144
4
ORDINANCE NO. 378
Family Day Care
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 378 was adopted at a regular meeting of th e City Council of
the City of Rolling Hills held on the XX day of Month, YEAR, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
145
Agenda Item No.: 10.E
Mtg. Date: 06/21/2022
TO:HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM:JOHN SIGNO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY SERVICES
THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT:RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW
AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
DATE:June 21, 2022
BACKGROUND:
California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) requires a city to grant a
developer, at the developer ’s request, a density bonus and concessions or incentives for
affordable housing projects. (Gov. Code, § 65915(b)(1).) A density bonus means an increase,
by a certain percentage, of the number of housing units that may be built for the site. (Gov.
Code, § 65915(f).) A concession or incentive means a modification of zoning code standard
for the site, such as reduced setbacks, a reduced parking requirement, or allowance of mixed-
use zoning. (Gov. Code, § 65915(k).) The degree of density bonus and number of
concessions or incentives is based on the number of affordable units in the project (by
percentage of all units in the project) and the level of affordability (i.e., for very low income,
lower-income, moderate-income, senior housing, etc.).
DISCUSSION:
State law requires cities to adopt an ordinance specifying how the city will implement State
Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65915(a).) The proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”)
amends the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”) to satisfy this requirement. The Ordinance
will add a new Chapter 17.62 to the RHMC, which will read as follows:
“Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable housing
146
incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State law, including,
but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall be available to applicants on
the terms and conditions specified in State law.”
The Ordinance will bring the RHMC into compliance with State Density Bonus Law. By
incorporating the State’s standards by reference, the RHMC will also stay current if and when
changes in State law occur. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
pursuant to Section 15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to
the environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land-use limitation, as the proposed
action does not allow any more density than before; it merely incorporates California’s density-
bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the statute. Lastly, the City Council finds
that this Ordinance is also exempt under CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
(there exists no possibility that the activity will have a significant adverse effect on the
environment) because this Ordinance will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing; and
2. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1), which:
a. Recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 379
(Attachment 2) adding Chapter 17.62 to the Rolling Hills Municipal Code regarding
density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State law;
and
b. Finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15358, 15305, and
15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2022-
12_Density_Bonuses_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
Attachment 2 - Ordinance No. 379-Density_Bonus_and_Affordable_Housing_Incentives.pdf
147
65277.00010\40138374.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62
TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND FINDING THE
ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.)
encourages developers to build affordable housing (e.g., very low-, low- and moderate-
income units) by requiring cities to grant a density bonus, concessions, incentives, and
waivers of developments standards for projects that commit certain percentages of their
units to affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915 requires cities to adopt an
ordinance specifying how the city will implement State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance (the “Ordinance”) amends the RHMC to
specify that density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State
law (including but not limited to Government Code section 65915 et seq.) will be available
to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with
the Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills does
hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.
Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that adoption of this
Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to
Section 15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical
148
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 2 of 4
change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also
exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land-use
limitation, as the proposed action does not allow any more density than before; it merely
incorporates California’s density-bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the
statute. Lastly, the Planning Commission finds that this Ordinance is also exempt under
CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (there exists no possibility that the
activity will have a significant adverse effect on the environment) because this Ordinance
will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
Ordinance.
Section 3. General Plan. The Ordinance’s amendments to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 9—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to adopt
density bonus requirements in accordance with State law.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, the
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the
proposed ordinance and code amendments that are attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Certification. The Planning Commission Chair shall sign and the
Secretary shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its
adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21th DAY OF JUNE, 2022.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, 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 Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
149
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 3 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 17.62 TO THE
ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING DENSITY BONUSES
AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 21,
2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
__________________________________
CHRISTIAN HORVATH, CITY CLERK
150
65277.00010\40138374.1
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable housing
incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives required by State law,
including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall be available
to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law.
151
ORDINANCE NO. 379
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 17.62
TO THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
DENSITY BONUSES AND OTHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INCENTIVES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND
FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.)
encourages developers to build affordable housing (e.g., very low-, low- and moderate-
income units) by requiring cities to grant a density bonus, concessions, incentives, and
waivers of developments standards for projects that commit certain percentages of their
units to affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65915 requires cities to adopt an
ordinance specifying how the city will implement State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (“RHMC”)
to keep it in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends the RHMC to specify that density bonuses
and other affordable housing incentives required by State law (including but not limited to
Government Code section 65915 et seq.) will be available to applicants on the terms and
conditions specified in State law; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the City gave public notice of a Planning
Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed
public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony
concerning this Ordinance. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its
adoption; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022 the City gave public notice of a City Council public
hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; and
WHEREAS, on [insert], 2022, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing
to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports
prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed
therein, and (3) the consi deration and recommendation by the City’s Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
152
2
ORDINANCE NO. 379
D ensity Bonus
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby
adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) p ursuant to Section
15358 (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title
14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly. Moreover, the proposed action is also exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land -use limitation, as the
proposed action does not allow any more density than befor e; it merely incorporates
California’s density-bonus statute and allowances by direct reference to the statute.
Lastly, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is also exempt under CEQA pursuant to
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (there exists no possibi lity that the activity will have a
significant adverse effect on the environment) because this Ordinance will not cause a
change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Ordinance.
SECTION 3. General Plan. This Ordinance’s amendme nts to Title 17 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code are consistent with, and in furtherance of, the City’s adopted
General Plan as they effectuate the Fifth Cycle Housing Element’s Implementation
Program No. 9—which provides that the City would amend the Municipal Code to adopt
density bonus requirements in accordance with State law.
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Chapter 17.62, entitled “Density Bonuses and
other Affordable Housing Incentives,” is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code and shall read in its entirety as follows:
“Chapter 17.62 Density Bonuses and other Affordable Housing
Incentives
Section 17.62.010 – Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to allow density bonuses and other affordable
housing incentives to qualifying projects in accordance with State law.
Section 17.62.020 - Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives
The density bonuses and other affor dable housing incentives required by State
law, including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 65915 et seq., shall
be available to applicants on the terms and conditions specified in State law.”
SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision
153
3
ORDINANCE NO. 379
D ensity Bonus
hereof. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Ordinance despite any partial invalidity.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days after its
passage and adoption in accordance with California Government Code section 36937.
SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk is hereby directed to certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be
published or posted in the manner required by law; and file a notice of exemption within
five business days after adoption of the Ordinance .
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this XX day of MONTH, 2022.
____________________________
James Black, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Christian Horvath, City Clerk
154
4
ORDINANCE NO. 379
D ensity Bonus
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, Christian Horvath, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 379 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills held on the XX day of Month, YEAR, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Christian Horvath
City Clerk
155