07-21-15 NIINUTES OF A
REGUL.A.R MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF TI�
C�TY OF ROLLING HILLS
JCTLY 21, 2015
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A regular mee�ing o£ the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by
Chairman Chelf at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2
Portuguese Bend Road,Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
Commissianers Present: Cardenas, G�ray, Kirkpa#rick, Smith and Chair�nan Chelf.
Commissioners Absent: None.
Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz,Planning Director.
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Shahiedah Coates,Assistant City Attorney.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Criss Gunderson, Architect.
Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering.
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive.
Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive.
Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane.
Arun Bhumitra, 16 Buggy Whip Drive.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West.
APPROVAL OF TI�AGENDA
Approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
APPR�VAL OF MINUTES
7uly 7,2p 15 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission held on July 7, 2Q15 as presented. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the
motion, which carried without objection.
OLD BUSIiVESS
ZONING CASE NO. 88Q. Request for a Variance to encroach with 61 square feet of mostly
completed additions and with two, no� to exceed 3' high retaining wa11s into the side yard
setback in Zoning Case No. 8$0, at 15 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot 78-RH}, Rolling Hills,
CA, (Hassaldt). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California
Environmental Qua.Iity Act{CEQA).
DUE TO THE DISCOYERY OF A REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCE,
WHICH WAS NDT ADEQUATELY NOTICED BY STAFF, CONSIDERATION OF
THIS CASE �'ILL BE CONTINUED TO A DATE SPECIFIC TO BE SELECTED BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSIDN.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Commissioner Cardenas recused
himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and
left the dais. Pianning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and sta.ted that the Planning
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
a�-2i-is _ 1 _
Commission visited tl�e site previously and at the last meeting asked staff to prepare a Resolution af
approval, at which time there was discussion about requiring access around the property greater than the
2 ft. proposed. She sta.ted that since the last meeting, it was determined that there is a codified section
that requires a 4 ft. setback but that was nat advertised so the Variance request can be readvertised and
pxoperly noticed. Following brief discussion and recognizing that the applicant cannot be present at the
August meeting of the Planning Commission, cansideration of this case was continued to Tuesday,
September 15,2Q15. Commissioner Cardenas returned to the dais.
Disc�xssion re�ating to de�nolition of large portion of structures during major remodels of
residences and recanstruct�on of same be considered New Construction for planning review
purposes. (RECOMMEND CONTINUANCE T4 A FUTURE DATE).
Planning Directar Schwartz reported that she is still researching this matter. As such, consideranon of
this matter was con�inued to a future date to be determined by staff.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 2D15-15. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO ENCROACH
WITH AN ADDITION INTO THE FRONT SETBACK AND WITH AN EXISTING P�ND
INT4 THE SIDE SETBACK IN ZONING CASE N�. 883, AT 6 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT
25-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA, (THOREN-PEDEN). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TQ BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENV�RONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA).
Chairman Chelf intraduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that an amended Resolutian, which includes strengthened findings regarding exceptional circumstances,
has been placed on the dais. She briefly reviewed the applicant's request for an addition which
encroaches into the side yard setback; and to retain an existing pond in the side setback.
Chauman Chelf called for �ublic com�ment. Hearing none, he asked far comments from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Smith mo�ed that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-15 granting
approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 883 at 6 Maverick Lane. Commissioner
Cardenas seconded the motion,which carried without objecdon.
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-16. A RESOLUTION OF 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI�
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE,
CORRA.L, RIDING RIlVG AND TURNOUT AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 879 AT 1 PINE
TREE LANE, (LOT �02-R-H}, {DELGADO). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PL]RSUANT T� THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA}.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked �or staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request for Site P1an Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a stable
at 1 Pine Tree Lane and other equestrian facilities. She stated that the Planning Commission visited the
site twice and at the suggestion of the Planning Commission, the request was revised to include a
smaller stable than originally proposed. She further reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the
stable meets all of the requirements of the Stable Ordinance.
Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for cornrnents from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission adopt ResoluHon No. 2015-1G granting
approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 879 at 1 Pine Tree Lane. Vice Chairman Gray
seconded the motion, which carried without objection and with Commissioner Kirkpatrick abstaining
due to an excused absence from the last meeting where this applicatian was discussed.
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 -2 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEIvIS CONTINUED FRQM PREVIOUS MEETING
ZONING CASE NO. 885. Request for a Site Plan Review�o canstruct an above grade deck and
Variances to encroach with the deck and a wall into the side yard setback and to exceed the
maximum permitted structuxal and total 1ot coverage at 15 Caballeros Road, (Lot 21-SK),
Rolling Hills, CA, {Shipman). The project has b�en deterinined to be categorically exempt
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
Chairman Chelf introduced�he item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that this is a cantinued public heari�g and that the Planning Cammission visited the site earlier today.
She reviewed the applicant's request to construct an above grade deck which involves raising an existing
deck to the level of another existing deck so that there wi11 be one level deck. She stated that the
proposed deck, as we�l as a proposed planter wall wili encroach into the side yard setback. She stated
that the applicant is alsa propasing to construct an outdoor kitchen and barbeque that, because of the
coverage requirements, is also before the Planning Commission. She stated that witli the changes to the
deck,the structural lot coverage is proposed at 26.5%and the total iot coverage is proposed at-44.2%.
Chairman Chelf called for public comment.
Criss Gunderson, Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf o£ the applicant. He
apologized for not being present at the fieid trip and offered to answer any questions. In response to
Vice Chairman Gray regarding the status of the house remodel, Mr. Gundersan reviewed the details of
the remadel and stated that they do no#intend to raise the roof at all.
Commissioner Cardenas comm�nted that this is a unique lof; and he agrees, as someone pointed out,that
the elevated hazdscape provides better access from the easement. Commissioner Smith commented that
she agrees, but feels that because o�the crowding on the lot, the Resolution should include a candition
that any further development be braught before the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman G�ray and
Commissioner Kirkpatrick concurred. Chaarman Chelf suggested that a condztion also be included that
the plants that are planted in the planter should b�Iimited in height so as nat to block any views.
Following brief discussion, Vice Chairmari Gray moved that �he Planning Cammission direct staff to
prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. S$S at 15
Caballeros Raad w�ith the standard findings of fact and conditians af approval plus two additional
conditions that any further development an this property be brought back to the Planning Commission
far review and that the landscaping in the planter be no taller than 4 ft in height. Commissioner Stnith
seconded the rnotian,which carried without objection.
ZONING CASE NO. 887. Request for a Site Plan Review to modify previously approved
driveway, which requires grading,to relocate previously approved walls along the reduced riding
ring and to construct a not to exceed 5' high retaining wa21 along a short portion of the driveway;
and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot at 24 Crest Road East
(Lo� 133-A-MS) Rolling Hills, CA, (Stevens}. The project has been determined to be
categorically exempt pursnant to the Caiifarnia Environmental Qua�ity Act(CEQA).
Chairman Cheif introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. She sta.ted that this is also a
con6nued public hearing where the Planning Commission visited the site earlier today. She reviewed the
applicant's request to modify a previously approved plan by reiocating the driveway, which requires
additional grading and will cause the s�ze of the existing arena to be reduced. She briefly re�iewed the
applicant's original request and sta.ted that in order to meet the Fire Dept. req�irement, the dri�eway
need to be widened and requires a license agreement from the Rolling Hills Cammunity Association.
She stated that the applicant has since propased to remove the endre driveway from the roadway
easement. She further reviewed the applicant's request noting that the applicant has provided
documentation which indicates that the dri�eway was originally lacated where it is currently praposed
and the previous owners of the property moved it so that the arena cou�d be en�arged, all of which was
done without permits and later approved as an as built.
Chauman Chelf called for public comment. Hear:�ng none, he asked for camments fro�n the Planning
Commission.
Commissioners Kirkpatrick, Gray and Smith commented that they are not apposed and they feei this is a
workal�le solution. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is not opposed, but he hates to see the
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 _3 -
size af the arena reduced. Chairman Chelf commented that he applauds the applicant for their efforts and
noted that although there is mare disturbed area and grading, �t should be noted that the area of the
existing driveway will be returned to a dirt/mulch surface.
Following brief discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to
prepare a Resalution granting appraval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 8$7 at 29 Crest
Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cardenas
seconded the motion,which camied without objection.
ZONING CA5E NO. 886. Request for a Site Plan Review and Variances to retain as built
outdoor accessory shuctures and a retaining wall in side and front yard setbacks at 5 Buggy
Whip Drive (Lot 245-A-MS} Rolling Hills, CA, (Nguyen). The project has been determined to
be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for stafPs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that this is also a continued public hearing where the Planning Commission visited the site earlier today.
She reviewed the applicant's request to retain as built shuctures including a barbeque and sink in the
front yard setback; a trellis, a portion of which also encroaches into the front yard setback; and a
fireplace which encroached into the side yard setback. She stated that the applicant is also requesting to
re-construct a wall ranging from 2-4 ft. along the stable access way leading to the rear of the property ta
replace the as built rubble wall in that area that was constr�xcted withaut permits. She reviewed the
coverages and further noted that there is an addi�ior�al cade enforcement issue on this property that staff
is addressing separately.
Chauman Chelf called for public comment.
Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In
response to Vice Chairman Gray, Mr. Bolton sta�ed that it would be his preference to keep the existing
rubble wall, for its aesthet�c purposes; and reinforce it as required by the Building Dept.
In response to Commissioner Smith regarding the applicant's origir�al request to canstruct a treliis in the
front yard setback being withdrawn, P�anning Director Schwartz stated that during the hearing of the
original case, the applicant requested a trellis, most of which encraached into the front yard setback and
that request was withdrawn after the Planning Commission indicated that it may nat be approved in the
front yard setback.
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the Planning Commission regarding the areas of erosion
that were pointed out by Mr. Dieringer at the field trip and addressed briefly by Ms. Schwartz as the
additional code enforcement issue on the properry that is being addressed separately by staff. She stated
that per the Zoning Code Section 17.34.O10A(3}, all illegal conditions on a property should be remedied
before an application is deerned complete. She further expressed concern that the erosion issue could
alsa cause stormwater related issues.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick noted that during the field trip when this matter was pointed out by Mr.
Dieringer, it appeared that this was something that could be fairly easily fixed and the applicant
indicated that he was willing to resolve the issue.
In response to Chairman Chelf, Ms. Dieringer commented that she does not believe they have any major
objection to the otl�er items that are before the Planning Coinmission; her rnain issue is wi#h regard to
the erosian and drainage issue.
Assistant City Attorney Coates commented that the Planning Commission should be xriindful of the fact
that a code enforcement action is separate from an application far a discretionary approval. With regard
to the code section that Ms. Dieringer referenced, Ms. Caates stated that the section does provide that an
application shall not deemed complete if an illegai condition exists on the property, but staff made a
determination that this code enforcement action did not constitute an illegal condirion. Ms. Schwartz
stated the she believes the in.tent of the code is to consider illegal structures or illegal grading in such
situations,not code enforcement actions such as this.
Dan Nguyen, 5 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the Planning Commission stating that he does not believe
#hey are required to have drainage in the easement, but they will cooperate to address the drainage issue
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 -4 -
raised by the Dieringers. With regard ta the wall, barbeque and trellis, he stated that it was simply a
mistake and they did not realize the trellis was in the setback.
Brief discussion ensued concerning how to best address the cira.inage issue raised by Ms. Dieringer. In
response, Mr. Bolton commented that they aze addressing the drainage issue with the Building Dept. and
feels that they will be able to come up rvith a reasonable solution. Mr. Bolton fUrther commented that
they are confident that they should be able to meet tl�e Building Dept. requirement with regard to the
wall. Further discussian ensued conceming the drainage issue.
Ms. Dieringer commented that she feels the code section she referenced regarding illegal conditions is
app�icable in this situation. Hearing no further comments frorn the public, Chairman Chelf asked for
comments from the Planning Commissian.
Vice Chairman Crray expressed concern regarding the as built structures in the front setback and
commented that it bothers him that the Planning Commissian continues to have to deal with as bu.i�t
structures.
Commissianer Kirkpatrick commented that he agrees with Vice Chairman Gray's sentiment but given
that the neighbors do not object to the shucYure and the unique constraints on this lot, he is not opposed
as long as the issues related to the drainage aze addressed.
Commissioner Smith also concurred with Vice Chairman Gray's comments and commented that sk�e toa
feels that since there is na great impact on the neighbors she is inclined to approve.
Commissioner Cardenas concurred with the previous carnrnents, noting that the orientation of the house
drives the location of the entertaining area into the setback. Chai�rman Chelf concurred as well and
stated that he feels that rebuilding the retaining wall and addressing the drainage issue are positive
outco�nes.
Following further discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct
staff to prepare a Resalution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 88b at 5
Buggy Whip Drive with the standard fmdings of fact and conditions af approval plus two additional
conditions that the applicant corr�ct the drainage issue alang the north properry line and �hat
construction be comple�ed within six (b) months. Commissianer Cardenas seconded the motion, which
caari�d without objection. The applicant was directed to snbmit a plan to correct the drainage issue.
ZONING CASE NO. 8S1 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2015-03.
CONSIDERATION OF AND DISCUSSION REGARDING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,
CHAPTER 17.26, RELATING TO V�W PRESERVATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS INTERPRETING MEASURE B RELATTNG TO VIEW PRESERVATION.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked fox stafPs comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that a letter was r�ceived and placed on the dais from a resident requesting that views continue to be
protected and suggesting that the City nat add an indemnification requirement. She reviewed the history
of this discussion stating that this matter is before the Planning Commission to consider clarifying some
of the vaguen.ess in the existing Ordinance and to provide guidelines for clarification in interpreting
some of the provisions set forth by Measure B after having been reviewed by a City Council ad hoc
committee. She stated that this matter has been before the Planning Commission on several accasians
and the Cornrnission has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Ordinance, up ta circle page 1 S
relative to subsequent maintenance. She further stated that once the Planning Commission completes its
review and makes its recammenda�ions, the matter will be scheduled for Public Hearing before the City
Council to consider an amendment to the Ordin�ance. She recommended that the Commission continue
its discussio� specifically relative to indemnification and whether or not there should be a distance
limitation for which an applicant may apply for view restoration. She sta�ed that this issue carne up at
the last �neeting and staff has provided information on what other cities do in this regard and that
information is included in the staff report. She £urther stated that there are also some pending items
relative to the Measur� B interpretation inc�uding the definition of mature vs. maturing and how
property "acquisition" should be defined. She stated that one additianal item has come up during a
pending case related to who is responsible for the cost of an expert opinion when one is required by the
Committee.
Chairman Chelf called for public oomment.
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 - 5 -
Spencer Karpf, 8 Maverick Lane addressed the Planning Commxssion stating that he feels that Measure
B prahibits the Commissian from adding a distance limitation.
Arun Bhumitra, 13 Buggy Whip Drive addressed the Planning Commission to urge the Planning
Commission to strictly enforce the View Preservation Ordinance.
John Nunn, 1 Crest Road West addressed the Planning Commission urging the City to add a distance
limitation and an indemnifcation requirement. He stated that he feels Measure B has been a good step in
the right direction.
Hearing no further comments, the Planning Commission continued its review of #he proposed
Ordinance.
In response to Mr. Karpf 5 comment regarding a distance limitation, Assistant City Attorney Coates
stated that Measure B does not preclude the City from setting a distance limitation in that a view is
defined in as being a visually impressi�e scene"not located in the immediate vicinity of the residence."
Planning Director Schwartz stated that the next section far consideration is Section 9 related to
notification of subsequent ovvners. Following brief discussion, the Planning Commissian recommended
the Ianguage be changed as proposec�in Section 17.26.080 to clarify the matter regarding notification of
subsequent owners.
Planning Director Schwartz stated that the Commission has several outstanding issues to consider
including: indemnification, distance limitatian and expert cost allocation from the Ordinance; and
mature vs. maturing and property acquisition from the Adrr�iriistrat�ve Regula�ions. Assistant City
Attorney Coates stated that there was one additionai item tabled regarding eligibility in Section
17.26.040(B}. Following brief discussion, the Committee felt that this matter was previously discussed
and a decision was made. The Planning Commission asked staff to review the minutes to verify whether
or not this item was previously decided.
Discussion ensued concerning setting a dis�ance limitation. Cornmissioner Cardenas cammented that he
liked the idea of setting a distance limitation and using the standard of 1,000 ft. as used in other parts of
the Zoning Code. Commissioners Gray and Smith concurted. Chairman Chelf commented that he feels
there are enough limitations in the ordinance currently that there is no need for a distance limxtation.
Further discussion ensued concerning the pros and cons of setting a distance limitation. Vice Chairman
Gray commented that his concern is that without a distance limitation an up hill property owner could
affect the trees on many o�the downhill neighboring properties and resuit in a significant loss of trees.
Chairman Chelf commented tha# there are enough safeguards in the ordinance, Iike allowing only view
corridors and his concern with setting a distance limitation is that over a period of time, all views will be
�DSt. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that his abjective is to simplify the pracess and make it
easier to apply. Following further discussion, the Planning Commission decided not to include a
distance limitation.
Discussion ensued concerning the allocation of cost for expert opinions when requested by the
Committee. Chairman Chelf commented that the ordinance curtently allows'the Committee to request
expert opinions when they are necessary ta aid the Committee in making a decision. He sated that as
wz�itten current�y, cost for such expert onions is borne by the applicant unless the Comxr�ittee goes
request that the City Council allocate funds for such services. He stated that he feels that t1�e Committee
should have the discretion to allocate those expenses to both parties in situations where doing so is
warranted. The other members of the Planning Commission concurred. Planning Director Schwartz
stated that the change will be reflected in Section 17.26A50{C).
Discussion ensued concerning indemnification. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he feels that this
is an i�nportant issue for the City and if the City is to continue with View Preservation, the Ci�y shauld
not be put at risk for lawsuits for what should be private property disputes. He stated that he feels that
indemnificatian is a good idea. Cha.irman Chelf commented that if the City were to require
indemnification of one party, it puts a hardship an that party and suggested that maybe both parties
should be required to indemnify the City. Assistan�City Attorney Coates clarified wl�at indemnification
means stating that if the City were to be sued for making its decision, the City would look to the
complainant for reimbursement of its legal expenses. She stated that it moti�ates the parties to be
diligent,just as the City is di�igent. Chairman Chelf cofnmented that it only motivates one side because
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 -6 -
the other side is not required to indemnify the City. Assistant Ci�y Attorney Coates stated that the City
could require both parties to indemnify the City but in her research, it is usually just one party, the
complainant, that is responsible far indemnification. Discussion ensued concerning indemnification and
the possibility of instituting a hold harmless provision. Assistant City Attorney Coates stated that
another option wauld be to craft the Ordinance so that the parties are required to voluntarily comply and
if they don't, the parties can sue each other in court using the decision rendered by the City. Further
discussion ensued cancerning indemnification and requiring both parties to indemnify the City.
Recognizing that there were members of the public wishing to address this issue, Chairman Chelf called
_ for public comment.
Mr. Karpf addressed the Planning Commissian stating that indemnification needs to be agreed to - it
cannot be imposed on a person (ie: the tree owner) who did not voluntarily decide to participate in this
process. He stated that Cities wha have an indemnification requirement typically rec�uire it of the
applicant.
Following �urther discussion, the Planning Commission concurred tha.t the complainant should
indemnify the City. Staff was directed to incorporate that change into the amended Ordinance.
Recognizing that the Planning Commission had campleted its discussian with regard �he proposed
changes to the drdinance, the Plannir�g Commission began discussian rela�ed to the Measure B
Interpretation. With regard to the matter regarding mature vs. maturing, the Planning Cammission,
decided�o consider that matter after it recei�es the opinion from the arborist in �he cuirent case, which
will be in September. With regard to acquisitian of property, Assistant City Attorney Coates reviewed
the options including how the State tax code views change of ownership. Discussion en.sued concerning
what the Ordinance should use as a definition for change af ownership. Recognizing that there was not
concurrence on this matter, the Planning Commission decided to continue discussion of this matter to a
future date.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt an Ord.ir�ance amending Chapter 17.26 relating to View Preservation as
discussed for the Planning Commission's consideration at its next meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
August 18, 2015 beginning at 6:30 p.m. The Planning Commission continued the discussion on the item
related to the administrative regulations interpreting Measure B to the October meeting af the Planning
Comrnission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 beginning at 6:30 p.m.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIl'S
None.
iTEMS FROM TI�PLANNING COMIVIISSION
None.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjoumed the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
The next regular meeting af the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesda.y, Aug�xst 18,
2015 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in t�e City Council Chamber, Rolling Hil�s City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road,Rolling Hills, California.
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
07-21-15 -'7 -
Respectfixlly submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approv
�:
�
ra Chelf
Chairman
Minutes
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
o�-Zi-rs - s -