01-17-17 MFNiJTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION
OF TI�
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
JANUARY 17,2017
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A regular meeting o£ the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by
Chairman Chelf at 6:34 p.m. on Tuesday, January 17, 2017 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Ro�ling Hills, California. Chairtnan Chelf introduced Jana Cooley as the City's
newest member of the Planning Commission and welcomed her to the Commission.
ROLL CALL
ComFnissioners Present: Cazdenas, Cooley, Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Chairman Chelf.
Commissioners Absent: None.
Others Present: Yolanta Schwartz, Pianning Director.
Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager.
Natalie Karpeles,Assistant City Attomey,
Julia Stewart,Assistant Planner.
Heidi Luce, City Clerk.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering.
Howard Weinberg,Attorney(far 18 Poriuguese Bend Road).
Tavisha Nicholson,Boiton Engineering.
Emiiy and Chaz Cipolla, 1 Middleridge Lane North.
Carolyn Harshman,Enviranmental Planning Consultants.
Rosie Lackow,Assistant Planner.
Leah Mirsch,4 Cinchring Road.
Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road.
Marc�a Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive.
Fenton Taylor,49 Saddleback Road.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMN�NTS ON MIN[JTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
APPROVAL OF M�IUTES
December 20, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Cornmission
Commission.er Seaburn moved that the Pianning Commission approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held an Decernber 20, 2016 as presented. Commissioner
Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried withaut objection. Commissioners Cardenas and Cooley
abstained because the were not present at December 20�'meeting. \
v \
RESIDENT REQUESTS
.
REQUEST FOR MIN�R MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPRQVED PROJECT IN
ZONING CASE NO. 88Q AT 15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD.
Commissioners Cardenas and Seaburn recused th�mselves from consideration of this case due to the
proximity of their properties to �he subject property and left the dais. Chairman Chelf ir�troduced the
item and asked for staf�s comments. Planning Director Schwartz reported that Commissioner Cooley
reviewed the record on this case and visited the si�e priar ta tonight's meeting. She stated that the
Minutes-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 - 1 -
applicant is requesting approval for a 20 ft. extension af a wall, not to exceed 3 ft. in height, along the
walkway next to the addition that was pre�viously approved. She further stated that norinally, this type of
request could be approved administratively but because there is a condition that any furttier development
on this praperty be braught before the Planning Commissian, this matter is before the Commission for
consideration. She stated that a Resalution approving this request has been prepared far the Planning
Commission's consideration. She further sta.ted that the City recently received same complaints
regarding the location of the portable tailet on the property, which app�ar as of today to have been
addressed,but the Resolution contains a condition to address this issue should it arise again.
Chairman Chelf called for cornments.
Gary Wynn, Wynn Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to
further explain the request and urging the Planning Commission to approve this minor modification. In
response to Commissioner Kirkpah-ick regarding the reason for the extension of tk►e wall, Mr. Wynn
stated that it is to make it clearer.
Howard Weinberg, Attorney addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the neighbors at 18
Portuguese Bend Road stating that he does not belie�e the Planning Commission can gran� a �ariance
for this request. He referred to the letter that he submitted in December regarding this matter, which
outlines his reasoning far such. He further commented that the Rolling Hills Community Association
l�as not appraved this project and has placed a stop work order on the project. He distributed a
cor�respandence explaining the reasoning for the stop work arder.
The Planning Commission reviewed the carrespondence. In response to Chairtnan Chelf, regarding the
location o�the wall,Planning Director Schwartz stated that the area o�the extension of the wall is not in
the easement.
Mr. Wynn addressed the Planning Commission to fixrther explain the soils, geology and engineering
associated with project as well as the communication he has had with the Rolling Hills Community
Association regarding the license agreement.
Tn response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Ms. Schwartz stated that what is being considered is a 20 ft.
extension of a wal�, not to exceed 3 ft. in height alang the 4 ft. walkway ne�t to the previously approved
addition and this would normally be something �hat could be approved administratively if not for the
conditian that any further developrnent be brought before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kirkpatxick commented that he unders#ands the concerns raised regarding the licensing
agreement issue, but that is not under the Planning Commissions purview and he believes the ex#ension
of the wall could be approved. Cammissioner Cooley cornrnented that sh� visited the site and she finds
the extension of the wall appropriate.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2017-41 granting
approval of the applicant's request for a minor modification to the previously approved project in
Zoning Case No. 8$0 at 15 Portuguese Bend Road. Commissioner Coaley seconded�he mohon, which
carried without objection. Commissioners Seaburn returned to the dais.
RESOLUTIONS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON�TEMS C�NTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
ZONING CASE NO. 914. Request for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits for
grading and canstruction of a new residence, garage and basement, swimming poal and other
miscellaneous amenities; and CUP for a sta.ble with corral, tennis court and a guest house in
Zoning Case No. 9141ocated at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road.
At the request of the applicant, consideration of this matter was continued to a field trip scheduled to be
held on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. at 11 Upper Blackwater Canyan Road. The
public hearing was continued.
Minutes-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 -2 -
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZONING CASE NO. 915. Request for a Site Plan Review to canstruct 1,750 sq, ft. home
addition and attached 441 square foot garage, not ta exceed 5' high wa.11s and grading related to a
proposed stable, home addidoz�s and for "as graded" unpermitted pathways; Conditional Use
Permit to constnzct a 5,368 sq. ft. sta.ble with 3,840 sq. ft. loft, 4,300 sq. ft. corral and 2,290 sq. ft
riding ring and expand an existing second driveway to 20-ft; Variances to en�croach with the
residential and garage addition into the front yard setback and to exceed the disturbance on the
lot from 47.9% to 55.6%. Also propased is to construct a third new paved driveway for access to
_ the stable from Middleridge Lane North. The subject property is located at 1 Middleridge Lane
North, (Lot 15, 16, 17-MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Cipolia). The project has been determined to be
categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section
15303.
Commissioner Cardenas was recused from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his
properry to the subject property. Chanman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the proposed project. She stated that the applicant is requesting a
S�te Plan Review for grading and an addition to the residence; Canditional Use Permits for a stable,
corral, riding ring and addxtaon to a driveway; and Variances £or the addition to encroach partially into
the front yard set back and to exceed the maximum allowed disturbance of the �ot. She further reviewed
the details of�he applicant's request statang that grading is proposed at 39,090 cu. yds. to b�balanced on
site. She stated that a stable is proposed, in the rear of the property, at 9,208 sq. ft. in total with 10 stalls
and to include tack space as well as other stable amenities. She stated that a riding ring is proposed at
2,290 sq f�. She �urther stated that applicant is alsa proposing ta widen one of the existing driveways to
a11ow easier access to the garage, which will also be reviewed by the Traffic Commission; and ta
consmxct a 20 ft, wide paved driveway to serve the stable as required by the Los Angeles County Fire
Dept. due to the size of the sta.ble. She stated that also proposed is a 5 ft. walkway along the side of the
driveway for equestrian uses as well as pathway, with a pervious surface, off the driveway to serve the
loft. She further reviewed the proposed pads, walls and grading associated with the project. She
commented that the walls, as currently proposed have less than tl�e usual separation between walls. She
then re�iewed the configuration of the stable stating that the agricultura� space is proposed at 91% with
tack room space at 9%, which meets the requirements of the stable ordinance. She stated that the plate
height is praposed at 27 ft. but because of its placernent on the lat, it will be 24 ft. lower than the ridge
height of the house. She stated that a variance is requested for disturbance at 55.6%, which exceeds the
maximum allowed. She further stated that there is an active code enforcement case on this property
where a path was graded to the bottom of the properly that was created by a landscaping crew to get to
the area at the bottom of the property to c�ear the vegetahon and the applicant, after working with staff
�o address this issue, is requesting a �ariance to legalize the path to a11ow for service of the rear of the
property. She fiuther stated that given its proximity to a natural drainage course, the appl2cant was
asked to obtain verificadon from the Army Corps. of Engineers and the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
that there are no areas af concern and the applicant provided a letter from the CA Dept, of Fish and
Wildlife stating that it is not under their jurisdiction. �he further reviewed the proposed drainage stating
that in cornpliance with the LID requirements, the applicant is proposing drainage to the rear af the
property through an infiltration unit and dissipater. She stated that o�ther than the Variances previously
reviewed, the proposed project meets all of the other de�elaprnent standards with total structural lat
coverage proposed at 18.3%. She further reviewed the pad coverage stating that due to a non-
con�orming situation, the pad coverage exceeds the guideline. She stated that there are a couple of
existing shed structures on the Iot that will be removed and there is a play area in the front setback that
will remain but it does not meet the threshold to be regulated by the City.
Chairman Chelf call�d for public comment.
.. Tavihsa Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Cammission to further explain the
proposed project stating that because the entire b0 ft, raadway easement is located on this property, the
net lot area greatly decreased. She commented that the topography of the site has also presented
challenges. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick regarding the separation between the walls, Ms.
Nicholson stated that because of the steepness of the slape to create more sepazation would require taller
walls.
Chaz and Emily Cipolla, 1 Middleridge Lane North (property owners) addressed the P�anning
Commission to further explain the project. Ms. Cipolla stated that they intend to keep their 10 horses on
the property and they require a lot of space for the equipment they have for those horses.
Minutes -
Planning Commissior�Regular Meeting
01-17-�7 - 3 y
Following staffls presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission
determined that a site visit should be schedu�ed to pravide the members of the Planning Commission
with £urther understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 91.5 at 1 Middleridge Lane
North. The public hearing was continued. Comrnissioner Cardenas returned to the dais.
SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS
The Planning Cornmission scheduled a field trip to the follawing propertiies to be held on Tuesday,
February 21, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.rn.
1� Saddleback Road
11 Upper Blackwater Canyon
1 Middleridge Lane North
NEW BUSINESS
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC FORUM ON TI� DRAFT HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE.
Chairman Chelf introduced the itern and asked for staff's comments. City Manager Cruz stated tl�at
State and loca� govemments are required to maintain a Hazard Mitigation Plan and update it every five
years per the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) of 2000. He stated that the plan documents the
City's hazard mitigation planning process and identifies hazards,potential loses, rriitigation needs, goals
and strategies; and supplements the City's camprehensive emergency rnanagement program. He nated
that without an updated Hazard Mitigation Plan, cities are not eligible far funds from the Federal
Emergency Mana.gement Agency(FEMA)in the event of a nahual disaster.
1VMr. Cruz stated that through a RFP process, the City selected Carolyn Harshman to help with
preparation of the plan which is divided into four major areas: Background,Hazard Analysis, Mitigation
S�ategies and Appendices. He stated that in order to assist with preparation of the plan a mitigation
planning team was assembled including representatives from,the Rolling Hills Community Association,
Califomia Water Service Campany, Southern California Edison, Los Angeles County Sheriffls Dept.,
Los Angeles County Fire Dept., Los Angeles County Building and Safety and others; as well as the
City's part-time Planning Assistant, Rosie Lackow. He stated that the team me�several times to identify
hazards, profile the ha�a.rds, estimate the inventory at risk, develop mitigation strategies; and ultimately
prepare a plan for implementation,
Mr. Cruz then reviewed the public outreach efforts the City engaged in since September 2015 including
publicat�on in the City's citywide newsletter, posting information on the City's web site and having
material available a�tlie Prepared Peninsula Emergency Preparedness Expo held in November 2016. He
stated tha� the primary areas of facus in de�+eloping the plan included earthquakes, wildfires, land
movement and drought. He fixrther reviewed the identified goals, which include: protecting life and
safety; enhaxicing pubiic awareness; protecting natura� systerns; increasing partnerships and
implementation; and improving emergency services. He stated that to date,no public comments or input
has been received on the plan. He stated tha.t presenting the plan at a public meeting before the Planning
Commission is part of the public participation process and once the comments are received,the Plan will
be forwarded to Califomia Office of Emergency Services (CaIOES} and FEMA for their review and
comment and once that is received it will be presented to the City Council for final adaption.
Carolyn Harshman, CEM, Emergency Planning Consultants reviewed the background as to why the
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) was adopted in 2000 stating that any entity that is funded
through taxation is required to have a Hazard Mitigation Plan and to update the plan every five years.
She sta#ed that she prepared the City's �irst Hazard Mitigation Plan and in the process of updating the
plan, the hazards are reviewed for any changes and in Ralling Hills' case, there weren't any major
changes. She further reviewed the update planning process, which included a planning group cansisting
20 members from a variety of different areas within the city including the City's service providers;
public outreach; and the review process. She stated that the mitigation actions are the core of the plan
and make up the bulk of the plan.
Ms. Harshman then reviewed the risk assessment, which highlig�.ts earthquakes, land movement,
wildfire and drought. She reviewed the potential for earthquake events on the Southern San Andreas
fault, the Puente Hills fault ar�d the Newpart-Inglewood fault which could all impact Ralling Hil�s and
Minutes-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 -4 -
showed a simulation of an catastrophic event on the Sauthern San Andreas fault and its potential impact
an the areas along the fault. With regard to wildfire hazard, she noted that the City is located entirely in
an area designated t1�e highest fire xating - Very High Fire Hazard Sever�ty Zone (VI�'HSV} which
presents a significant potential tt�reat.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick comrnented that it was insightful to read the background and history behind
the potential hazards, specifically regarding earthqua.kes.
Ms. Harshman commented that one of the recommendations included in the Hazard Mitigation is that
the City to update the techtucal background report when the Safety EIement of the General Plan is
updated. Planning Director Schwartz commented that one of the mitiga�ion measures is to update the
Safety Element of the City's GeneraI Plan.
Chairman Chel�called for public comment.
Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road inquired as to why flaod isn't included as one of the potent�ial hazards.
Ms. Hazshman commented that an working with the Planning Team is was determiried that although
there may be some areas prone to localized flooding, it would likely not reach the extent that would
result in a major disaster declaration for the City af Rolling Hills.
Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road commented that when contacting an insurance company ta
inquire about getting flood insurance, it was explained to her that the City is not in a flood zone and
would not qualify for flood insurance. Ms Harshman further explained that if the City were to declare
fload as a major impact axea it wou�d trigger a xequixement to prove the point.
Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Chelf called for a motion. Commissioner Seaburn
moved that the Planning Commissio� receive and file the DRAFT Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion,which carried without objection.
D�SCUSSION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S VIEW PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated
that there wi11 likely be several meetings necessary �o review and discuss this tapic. She explained that
the staff report contains a "Decisian Table" designed as a starting point for focusing the discussion on
issues be£oxe the Planning Commission. She noted that the Decision Table includes the issue under
consideration, the current ordinance language regarding the issue and the proposed concept language that
came from the DRAFT ordinance prepazed by Spencer Karpf. She commented that the Decision Table is
designed to be a starting point and the Planning Commission should review the items point by point to
determine how to move foru+ard in ainending the Qrdinance includir�g public input in the process. She
commented that there are areas in Mr. Karp�'s DRAFT ordinance that may or may not be feaszble and
a.fter discussion amongst t1�e Planning Commission and taking public input, the City Attorney's office
will review it for legality and draft an Ordinance for consideration based on those discussions.
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the background on this matter stating that af�er Measure B, which
amended the City's View Preservation Ordinance, was adopted by the voters in 2013, it became apparent
that there were some flaws in the Measure, which made it difficult to interpret and apply. Following
several meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council, administrative regulations interpreting
Measure B were adopted and an ordinance was adopted makitng some ather madifications to the City's
view preservation ordinance. Recognizing that there were still difficu�ties in applying Measure B, the
City Council created an ad hoc committee consisting of Councilmembers Mirsch and Pieper to meet and
discuss options for amending the City's view presenration ordinance and possibly repealing Measure B.
The ad hoc committee, a2ong with several residents including, Chairman Chelf, Spencer Karpf and the
proponents of Measure B and the initiative petition cwrrently being circulated {Measure 2017) rnet
several times over the course of several months to discuss the mater. She stated that the objective of the
ad hoc committee rneetings was to try to come to a consensus on direction for crafting a new ordinance
that could be adopted, if Measure B is repealed, that takes the car�cerns of both sides of the issue inta
account and would avoid the need to place a measure on#he ballot that wouid resuit in another sitt�ation
where the regulations can only be changed by another vote of the electorate. Slze stated the Lynn Gill,
who is ane af the proponents of Measure B and Measure 2017 has provided in£ormation for�he Planning
Commission's consideration and it is included wi#h the staff report. She cammented that he suggests
Minutes-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
a�-i�-�� - 5 -
arbitration to limit the City's liability and provided �nodel ardinance from the City of Tiburon that uses
arbitratian.
Ms Schwartz stated that also included in the staff report as Exhibit E is an ordinance drafted by Mr.
Karpf after the ad hoc cammittee meetings that incorporates many of the concepts agreed to by the ad
hoc committee bu� does not represent full concurrence of the ad hoc committee. She commented that
staff has prepared a "Decision Table" to focus the Planning Commissions discussions as this matter is
considered. She stated that the purpose of these meetings is to get consensus from the Planning
Commission based on its discussion and input from the public for direction to staff in drafting an
ordinance that will be considered by the Planning Comrnission for recommendation far adoption by the
City Council.
Assistant City Attarney Karpeles comrnented that the Decision Table is broken into issues or concepts
with the thought that the Planning Commission could start with sorne of the simpler issues like definition
and proposed definitians and once there is sold groundwork as to what is the definitian of�iew then
move into impXementation of preservation of that view and the concepts surroi.�nding that issue.
In response to Commissioner Cardenas, Planning Director Schwartz commented that the Ordinance
cannat be amended unless Measure B is repealed by the votes. Chairman Chelf commented that in
working with the ad hoc committee that included individuals that wrote and supported Measure B, there
was a lot of common grouna disco�ered. In response to Commissioner Coaley, Chairman Chelf sta,ted
that the proposed language in many instances represents a compromise between the two sides of the
issue. Planning Director Schwartz commented that the Decision Table presents the concepts and staff will
guide t1�e Planning Commission as to what can be implemented. Chairman Chelf commented that the
objective is to have an ordinance that can be modified or amended by the City as necessary rather than
having to ta.ke it to a vote of the electorate any time a change is proposed.
Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road (Councilmember) addressed the Planning Commission to thank the
Planning Commission for talcing this matter under consideration. As a member of the ad hoc committee,
she explained that the objective of the committee was to determine which concepts could be agreed on
which are included in Exhibit C of the staff report, to present a starting point for discussion amongst the
Planning Commission and public, and subsequently provide direcnon to staff to write an ordinance that
represents those concepts. She stated that amongst the Committee it was important to shaw that that the
City Council can work with its constituents to govern and develop regulations that work for the City
withaut having to go thraugh the initiative process taking into account the fact that both trees and �iews
are important in the City. She stated that during the process,there were compromises made on both sides
of the issue. She urged the Planning Commission to be open-minded when considering the concepts.
'The Pla�ning Commission began consideration of the definition of the term View. Chairman Chelf
asked for comments from tlxe public.
Tina Greenberg, 32 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the Planning Commission sfating that rnast people
would agree that the view you aze entitled to preserve is the view that was purchased u+ith the property
and that is what should be pratected; but determining how to interpret what is the evidence of that view
and how to preseave it is the challenge. She commented that she understands the difficulty created when
the term"rnature"was added to the ordinanc�by Measure B.
Marcia Schoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, addressed the Planning Commission to thank the commission far its
work on this matter and stated that she agrees with the proposed language to define `�ew." .
Haward Weinberg, Attorney addressed the Planning Cornmissian suggesting that the clause in the
definition that adds degrees of view far a view carridor shauld be elirninated. He also commented that
�iew should not be Ii�nited to a singular view from a property — properties that have multiple views
should not be prohibited from restoring one view because they have a view from another area on the
property.
Fenton Taylor, 49 Saddleback Road addressed the Planning Commission stating that there are an even
number of opinions on both sides of issue.
Discussion ensued concerning "viewing point" versus "viewing area" as related to the defmition of
`�iew" and the proposed language Iisted in the Decision Table. Ms. Karpeles clarified that the "issue"
calurnn in the decision table refers to general concepts that the ad hoc cominittee agreed shauld be
Minutes-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 -6 -
considered. She fu�rther stated that the `�roposed language" column provides the language from the draft
ordinance prepared by Spencer Karpf (E�ibit E), but does not necessarily represent the opinion and
consezzsus of the ad hoc cammittee. Commissioner Carc�enas suggested using the current ordinance as a
starting point rather than the proposed language and cansidering the amendments/guidelines
recornmended by the ad hoc committee. Ms. Karpeles commented that was the intent and the proposed
language was just included far reference.
Commissioner Cardenas commented that he Iikes the simplicity of the defmition of view as represented
in curirent ordinance and suggested adding "panoramic" and "multiple views." He suggested rnaking it as
clear and simpl� as possib�e. Discussion ensued concerning the definition of view; the term panoramic
and degrees for panoramic; and viewing point.
Commissioner Seaburn suggested using the proposed language but eliminating the second sentence that
begins, "A view may be..." and the last sentence that begins "`View" includes..."; and adding reference
to multiple views being allowed. Discussion ensued concerning views that include structures or
estabIished vegetation in the foreground or background on the view seeke:rs property and multiple views
from the same properly.
Following further discussian, the Planning Commission co:ncurred with Co�nmissioner Seaburn's
suggestions and directed staff to draft a revised defmition as such.
The Planning Commission bega� consideration of the defmition of the term View Corridor. Discussion
ensued concerning panoramic views vs. view corridors and the reasoning behind adding the term v�iew
corridox.
Mr. Weinberg commented that a view corridor should not be part of the defmitians but rather part of a
remedy for the person seeking the view depending on what they can prove they had when they purchased
the property.
Ms. Greenberg commented that she agrees that it may nat be necessary to include the term view corridor
in the definitio�. Councilmember Mi�rsch concurred.
Fotlowing further discussion, the Planning Commission cancurred #hat the definition of view corridor
should be elirninated.
The Planning Commission began consideration of the definition of the term View Impairment.
Mr. Weinberg commented that this defirution should not preclude restoration af a view from one property
simply because there may be anottier praperty further away that has vegetation that may also block the
view.
Councilmember Mirsch commented that in the Committee's discussians, there was general agreement
that a property owx�er seeking view restora.tion may have multiple properties that affect the view and
should not be precluding from filing multiple requests for view restoration and they do not ha�e to be
filed simultaneously.
Commissioner Seaburn suggested using the existing language but using term to "properties" rather than
the singular "property." Discussion ensued concerning the scope of this definition. Chairman Chelf
suggested adding the term "established view" to this definition and later defming that term. Discussion
ensued concerning th�definition of established view.
Following furkher discussion, the Plannir�g Commission concur�red that the defmition of view irnpairtnent
shou�d be revised as follows: Any obstruction of an established view by vegetation on othe�r properties.
The Planning Commission began consideration of the new praposed definitions for arborist industry
terms related to view restoradon as presented in Exhibit E. Discussion ensued concerning what are
arborist industry standards for such terms and Planning Director Schwartz stated that the proposed terms
came direc�ly from the City of Tiburon's ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed that definitions
should be included and asked sta#�to research the defmition of those terms to determine an appropriate
definition. Tl�e P�amung Commission stopped the discussion after the term "Damage."
Following discussion, consideration of this matter was continued.
Minutes-
Planning Comrnission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 -7 -
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Selection of two members of the Plannin.g Cornrnission to an Ad Hoc Committee for the purpose
of reviewing construction of stables(oral).
Following discussion, the Planning Cammission appointed Commissioners Cardex�as and Cooley to
seive on an ad hoc committee to meet with representatives of Caballeros for the purpose of reviewing
the requirements for construction/uses of stables.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMM�.SSION
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, Feb�ruary
21, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for#he purpose of conducting a site visit to 11 Upper Blackwater Canyon
Road, 1 Middleridge Lan� North and 11 Saddleback Road. The next reguiar meeting of the Planning
Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 beginning �t 6:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chamber, Rolling Hi11s City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Approved,
�,,.
,. :; .
'�.._..y...
,,
6
B�
Chairman
Minutes -
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
01-17-17 - 8 -