07-18-17FT MINUTES OF AN
ADJQURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING CQMMISSI�N
JULY 18, 2017
PRESENT:
Chairman Chelf, Comtnissioners Cardena�,Seaburn and Cooley
Vice-Chaixznan Kirkpatrick was absent and excused
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
Ju1ia Stewart, Assistant Planner
James Aichele,resident
FIELD TRIP
Chairman Chelf called the public hearing to order at 7:30 a.m. at 0 Poppy Trail.
A. ZONING CASE NO. 922, (Request for a Sife Plan Review to
construct a new 4,$59 square foot residence and 1,232 square foot garage, a 560
square foot swunming pool and spa, with additionai amenifi.es such as a
gatehouse and outdoor covered kitchen; and Conditional Use Permit for 688
squaxe foot guest house. The applicant is also �equesting Variances to allow for
paxtial construction in the front yard area, for a privacy wall �hat exceeds 5' in
height and to exceed the previously approved disturbance of the lot. The subject
property is located at 0 Poppy Trail (Lat 90-B1-RH) Roll�ng Hills, CA, (Serpa).
T'he project has been determined to be categorically exempt {Class 3-.Section
15303) pursuan�to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA} Guidelines.
A1so present for this field trip public hearing were:
A1vin Serpa, property owner
Tavisha Ales, Bolton Engineering
George Sweeney, Ax�chitect
Planning Directox� Schwartz reviewed the proposed development for new residence,
garage and related structures and explained the request for variances to locate a portion
of the pool and outdoor kitchen amenities in the front yard area of the lot (in front of the
leading edge of the residence}; the �.7�' high privacy wall and exceedance o£ the
disturbance. She explained fhat following a Iandslide in 2005, the property was
remediated and stabilized and the project was reviewed pursuant to �he California
Environmental Quality Act, whereby a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was
adopted in which mitigation measures were developed for certain environmental effects
identified in the enviranmental documents. Those mitigation measuxes were
1
implemented during the remediation and stabilization of the property following the
landslide.
She stated that grading, which contributes to dis�u.rbance of the �ot, was necessary to
stabilize fhe property and which exceeded the maximum pezmitted 40% disturbance for
which a Variance snras granted by the City, and which was a part of the enviranmental
review.
She further stated that the current plans show distu.rbance gxeater than previous�y
approved and that staff needs to reconcile the previously repo�ted disturbance with the
currently obfained information regarding di.stttrbance, even though the development
project currently proposed is exempt from CEQA requirements. An addendum to the
previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is necessary and staff is working on
the addendum.
In response to Chairman Chelf, Planning Director Schwartz stated that minima� grading
is necessary for the residential building pad fo Ievel if off for the construction, as it is
now at about 10% gradient. She then stated that the applicant proposes to grade the
building pad for a future stable, but has no plans to built one at this time. She stated that
it has been the City's policy to not to allow grading for building pads unless a structure
is planned to be erected concurrently with the grading. She stated that the evening out af
the building pad will result in a balanced cut and fill; however the future stable pad
could require export of some dix-�, if allowed to be graded now. The Commissioners
indica�ed that since the applicant would be required to come back to the Plarming
Commission in the fuiure for app�roval of a stable, that this be brought up at that time,
rather than grade for the stable pad naw. The applicant inquired and was informed that
he can use the stable pad, which is relatively flat, for staging for the construction
materials during development, as long as no grading takes place on said pad.
A11 present walked around fihe house and the accessory structures and outdoor
amenities and viewed the proposed development.
In response to Commissioner Seaburn, Ms. Schwartz stated that there were no inquires
or cominents from any of the neighbars on this praject.
Chauman Chelf asked if any o£ the Co�unissioners have any concerns or questions and
hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a motion for staff to bring a
resolution of approval for the next Plax�ni.ng Commission meeting.
Commissione� Seaburn made a motion for sta£f to prepare a Resolution of approval and
ComxnissionEr Cardenas seconded it.
There being no further dxscussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening
meeting of the P�annulg Commission at b:30 PM.
2
B. ZONiNG CASE NO. 924, Request for a Site Plan Review to canstruct
approximately 920 square feet of residential additions, an a property with a
re�tricted development condition. The subject property is 7 PorEuguese Send
Road (Lot 41-RI� Rolling Hills, CA, (Martin). T`he project has been determined to
be categorically exempt under C'�ass 1, Secfion 1�301{3) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act{CEQA) Guidelines.
Present for this public hearing were:
Susan Sreitenstein,neighbor
Don Lords, Owners' representative
Richard Gastelum, Architect's representative
Assistant Planne:r Stewart reviewed the proposed development and pointed out the
p:roposed additior� and patios. She stated that the propased additions entai1917 square
feet, which would normally fali under an admYnistrative approval. However, in the past
as part of an approval for a substantial addition, this property received a condition that
any future development on the property requires Planning Con�unission review. She
stat�ed that a few days prior to the meetin� the architect provided a letter requesting the
removal of the restricted development designation along with a diagram showing wha�
was previously approved versus what was current�y proposed and what was built. Ms.
Stewart painted out that the proposed addition is much sma�ler than the previously
approved project. She stated that no grading is proposed, and that the project meets a11
of the permitted development standards and coverages.
Ail present walked around the house and viewed the proposed development.
In response to Chairman Chelf, Plaru�ing Director Schwartz stated that norxnaliy when
there is a resi�ricted development condition on a property, i�£ the entitlements that were
appraved a� the �m� �vere not irnplemented, #hen �taf,� would deem the restric�ive
condition non-applicable. Ms. Schwartz stated, that in this case, staff did not have
timely sv.£ficient information to make a determination that the condition of restricted
developrnent would not apply.
In response to Chauman Chelf, Ms. Breitenstein stated that she has no objections or
issues with the proposed development.
Chaixman Chelf asked if any of the Conunissioners have any concerns or questions and
hearing none, asked if sorneone would like to make a motion for staff to bring a
resolution of approval.
Cornmi.ssioner Seaburn made a motion for staff to prepare a Resolution of approval and
Commissioner Cooley seconded it.
3
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening
meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM.
C. Z�NING CASE NO. 926, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
construcf a '779 square foot sfable, which includes a loft. The subject property is 6
Meadowlark Lane (Lot 2Q-RH) Rolling Hi11s, CA, (Dunlap). The p�oject has been
deterrnined to be cafegorically exempt under Class 3, Section 1�303 pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines.
Present for this public hearing was Mr. Dunlap, fafher of the applicant,
Michael Dunlap.
Assistant Planner Stewart reviewed the proposed development and pointed out the
silhouette for the proposed stable with a Ioft and corral, which requires a Conditional
Use Permit. She stated that no grading was needed for the project as �he building pad
already exi.sts and that the pad was created during improvernen�s being made for a
project that was approved in 1997,which included approval for a s�ble and corral.
B�ief discussion ensued regarding grading out building pads without placing structures
on them. In response to Chairman Chelf,Planning Director Schwartz stated that an item
could be placed on the Planning Commission agenda to discuss this issue and Building
Code process for grading and development.
Chairman Chelf asked if any of the Commissioners have any concerns or questions and
hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a rnotion for staff to bring a
resolution of approval.
Commissioner Cardenas made a motion for staff to prepare a Resolution of approval
an��anlmissaane�Cc�Iey,ec��d�d it.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening
meeting of the P�anning Cammission at 6:30 PM.
D. ZONING CASE NO. 90$. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading to
repair a failed slope, a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of
fhe lot and a Sfable Use Permit to a1low a structure constructed as a s�able in 7�980
to continue to be used for recreation uses in Zoning Case No. 908, located at 2950
� Palos Verdes Drive North, (Lot 1-D-1RH} (Rottex). The project has been
defexmi.ned to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California
Environrnental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines,Section 15303.
Present for this public hearing were:
Andy Weller, applicant's representative
Sergio Lopez,J'r., Da1 Mo Chong and Associates
4
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed tkte applicant's request to remediate a slope failure
and to construct a basement and pointed out the area of failure and the condxtion of the
residence foundation that resulted from the slope failuxe. She stated that with the
remediation of the slope the di.sturbance of the lot would be 44.5% and that a Variance is
required. She also reviewed the required Sfable Us� Permit to allow a structure
approved in 1980 far a stable use, which has been used as a recreation room, to continue
to be used for recxeational purposes. She stated tha� pursuant to Section 17.�8.140(H) of
the zoning ordinance, legally constructEd one-story s�ables not currently used as stables
may be used for passive recreation activities provided that certain conditions are met.
She stated that the applicants are aware of the cond'ztions and the structure must be in
compliance at the same time as the remainder of the project is comp�eted.
AlY present walked over to the stable/recreation room structure. Commissioner
Cardenas noted that there is adequate area around the structure fo�r a corral.
Planning Director Schwax�tz stated that due to the urgency of the slope failure and the
desired time frame to commence grading (prior to the rai�y season), staff prepared a
draft Resalution of approval of the projec�, for consideration by the Planning
Commission at theix ever�ing meeting.
�ayt'man Chelf asked if any of the Corninissioners have any concerns or questions and
hearing none, asked if someone would like to make a motion to consider a resolution of
approval at the evening Planning Commission meeting. All Commissioners concurred to
consider the resolution at�he evening meeting.
There being no furthEr discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening
meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:30 PM.
Respe S ' e ,
�
�
Yo1an Schwartz, Plannin irector Da e
Approved:
F°, �
�_: � � �'
Bra helf,�C 'Y�xn Dafe
5