08-15-17 REGULAR MEETING
flF THE PLANIVING COMMISSTON
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
b:30 PM
TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2017
ROLLING HILLS �ITY HALL
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
�G A regulax meeting of the Plannia�g Commission of the City of Ralling Hills was called to order by
Chairman Che�f at 6:31 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, �017 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall,
2 Pnrtuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hi11s, California.
ROLL CALL
Coinmissioners Present: Cardenas, Cooley and Chairman Chelf
Commissioners Absent: CoFnmissioner Seaburn and Vice Chaizxnan Kirkpatrick(excused)
Others Present: Ra.ymond Cruz, City Mana.ger
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
Natalie Karpel�s, Assistant Cxty Attorney
Julia Sfiewa.rt, Assistant Planner
Yvette Hall, Interim City Clerk
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road
Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road
Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect
Tavisha Ales, Bolton Engineering
John Resich, S Outrider Road.
Dimitri Bizaumis, 30 Portuguese Bend Road
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane
APPROVAL OF THE AGEND�
Approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS QN Mi1�VTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
APPROVAL QF MINiJTES
July 18, 2017 Adjourned Regular Meeting of t�ae Planning Commission
Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of�he adjourned
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 18, 2017 as presented. Commissioner
Cooley seconded the motion, which carried withou#objection.
]uly 18, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commissior� approve the minutes o� the regular
me�ting of the Planning Commission held on July 1$, 2017 as pxese�.ted. Camxnissioner Coaley
seconded the motion,which carried without ob�ection.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12. A RESOLUTION QF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ItESTDENCE WITH COVERED PORCHES,
GAR.AGE, SWIMNIlNG POOL AND OUTDOOR AMEIVITIES; A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE
Minutes �x
Plaruiing Comrnission Meeting
OS-15-17
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBANCE, FOR HIGHER THAN 5' PRIVACY WALL
AND TO LOCATE PORTI�N OF THE POOL AND COVERED PATI� IN THE FRONT
YARD OF THE PROPERTY IN ZONING CASE NO. 922 AT 0 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 90-
BA-RH), (SERPA). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT {CLASS 3} PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT(CEQA) GUIDELINES.
AND
APPROPVAL OF AN AMENDED MITYGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED LANDSLIDE REMEDIATION
PROJECT.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls comments. Planniilg Director Schwartz
reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 922 at 0 Poppy Trail. She stated that the proposed
project is a Site Plan Review, Variance and Canditional Use Permit for a new home consisting o�4,859
square feet, garage, guesthouse, swimming pool and outdoor amenities, wifh a lat disturbance of
approximately 79%. Planning Directar Schwartz indicated that with this application staff determined
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was approved with the original remediatian praject needed
to be amended because what was reported in the original project was a 65% lot disturbance, whereas
the cttrrent proposal, after the new survey was taken, showed a 79% lot disturbance. She stated that as
a result, the Variance that was granted at that time would be changed to 79%, She stated that staff
spoke to the previous geologist, environmental consultant and soils consultant and compared the studies
that were prepared for the previous project. Planning Director Schwartz conferred with the consultants
and determined that although the percentages do not match, the area of remediation and the area that
was taken under consideration for the environmental reviews were exactly the saxne; therefo�e, staff
prepared an addendum to the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. She stated that if the Planning
Commission adopts this Resolution, it is also recommended that approval of the addendum to the
original Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. Planning Director Schwartz recommended that the
Resoludon be adopted.
Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comme�nts from the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Plaiuung Commission adopt Resolution No. 2017-12 granting
approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 922 at 0 Poppy Trail as presented and including
an amended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previously approved and implemented landslide
rernedia�ion project. Cornrnissioner Cooley seconded the rnotion, which carried withaut objection.
RESOLUTI�N NO. 2017-14. A RES�LUTION OF THE PLANNING C�MMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITION USE
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 779 SQUARE FOOT STABLE WITH A LOFT,
AND 3,290 SQUARE FOOT CORR.AL IN ZONING CASE NO. 926 AT 6 MEADOWLARK
LANE, LOT 20-RH, (DUNLAP}. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA) PURSUANT TQ CLASS 3, SECTION 15303
OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffls cornrnents. Assistant Planner Stewart
reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 926 at 6 Meadowlark Lane. She stated that the
proposed project is a two story stable that requires a Conditional Use Permit due to the stable size and
the size of proposed corral. She indicated that the project is located an ar�existing pad that was graded
during the previous project and that the entire pad will be used for the proposed stable and corral.
Assistant Planner Stewart noted that there is also an existing access that was improved with the
previaus project. She indicated �lie project is categorically exempt frorn CEQA and the criteria for
reviewing the Resolution of Approval were provided in the staff report.
Chairman Chelf called far public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments frorn the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2017-14 gxanting
approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 92b at 6 Meadowlazk Lane as presented.
Cominissioner Cooley seconded the motion,which carried without objection.
NEW FUBLIC HEARINGS
-2-
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
08-15-17
ZQI�TING CASE NO. 925, Request far a Site Plan Review to construct a new approximately
93 S squaxe faot residential addition and 982 square foot basernent, conversion of a 484 square
foot garage to a new residential entry, new spa and 5 foot retaining wall; and Conditional Use
Permit for an approximately 352 square foot addition to an existang 430 square foot paol house;
and Variance ta exceed �he maximum pernutted disturbance of the lot. The subject properry is
located at 16 Pine Tree I.ane �Lot 51-1-RH) Ralling Hills, CA, (Bharadia). CEQA Categorica.l
Exemption under Class �, Section 153a1.
Ch�irman Chelf intxoduced the item and asked �or staff's comments. Assista.nt Planner Stewart
reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 925 at 16 Pine Tree Lane. She stated that the
project requires a Site Plan Review, Condxti.anal Use Permit, and a Variance. She stated that the
�T�1� applicant is proposing a series o�re�nodels, conversions, and small scale new canstruction resulting in
a n�w garage, hallway and basement, a new spa, a converted entryway, a new 5 foot tall retaining wall
and an enlarged pool house. Assistant Planner Stewart sta.ted the applicant is requesting a Site Plan
Review for a residential addition, which is actually a conversion of an existing garage, plus a new
garage, to replace the garage that is being converted; additions to an existing pool house; and a new
spa. Assistant Planner Stewart sta.ted the existing disturbance for the property is over the 40%
all�wable; therefore, a Variance is being requested as they will be increasing the amount of
dislturbance. She sta.ted the lot coverages and grading �a.11 within the allowable limits for tk�e Zoning
Code and�o comments frorn the public were received for this project. Assistant Planner Stewart stated
ttzat the project was categorically exernpt fram CEQA and that the findings for the Site Plan Review,
Conditional Use Permit and Variances were provided in the staff report.
Chairman Chelf called for public comxxient.
Bizhan Kha�eeli, Architect, corrunented that he has been working on the property for years and has
made improvements to the rear of the property; and is now seeking to correct the oddities of the front
of the site. He reviewed the items to be co�r�rected.
Following staff's presentation and public testimony, the members of #he Planning Commission
determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission
with fiarther understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 925 at 16 Pine Tree Lane.
_. The public hearing was continued.
ZONING CASE NO. 930, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new approximately
1,500 square faot xesidential addition and 520 square foot garage adc�ition, conversion of a 422
square foot garage to a new residential space, 855 square feet of new covered porches, and a
new 200 square foot trellis. The subject properiy is located at 52 Portuguese Bend Road (Lot
4-FT) Rolling Hills, CA, {Frey Survivor Trust/Francesca Wachs). CEQA Categorical
Exemption under Class 1, Sectian 15301.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for sta.ff's comments. Assistant Planner Stewart
reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 930 at 52 Partuguese Bend Road. She s�tated that
a Site Plan Review is required for the project. Assis�ant Planner Stewart stated the project consists of a
residential addition, garage addition, new covered porches and a new trellis. Sl�e reviewed the
elevations, lot coverages and grading and indicated they were within the lirnits of tl�e Zoning Code.
She noted that the Fire Department may reyuire widening of the driveway to 20 feet given the current
Fire Code standards. She staterl the existing disturbance is over the 40% limit; however, there is no
proposed additional disturbance. She stated no public comments were received on the project and it is
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chairman Chelf called for public comment.
Johti Resich, 8 Outrider Road, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the proposal was to remove
the e�isting garage, which does not allow for a suitable entry into the house, and to change the ga�rage
over to the area displayed on stafPs PowerPoint preser�ta.tion, adding a master bedroom, laundry roam
and bathroom. He stated the only contingency is that tke F�re Deparhment may require widening of the
driveway.
Following staf�s presentation a.nd public testimony, the members of t13e Pla,nning Commission
determined that a site visit shou�d be scheduZed to provide the members of the Planning Commission
with further unders�anding o�t.�e applicant's rec�uest in Zoning Case No. 93� at 52 Portuguese Bend
Raad. The public hearing was continued.
-3-
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
08-15-17
.ZONING CASE NO. 918, Request for a Site Plan Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a
Variance to construct a new 9,165 square faot residence, 2,25Q square foot basement, new 940
squaxe foot four-car garage, new 3,575 square foot stable, 9,200 square foot corral, 11,3b0
square foot riding ring, widened access road leading to the corral, and various outdoor
amenities. This necv construction will require the demoli�ion of the existing residence, two
sma11 accessory structures, and the existing stable on the subject properry located at 20 Upper
Blackwater Canyon Road (Lot 101-RH) Rolling Hills, CA, {Dominic Tannitti). CEQA
Categorical Exemption under Class 3, Section 15303.
Chauman Che�f introduced the item and asked for staff's corru�ents. Assistant Planner Stewart
reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 918 at 20 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road. She
stated the project includes a rnix of demolition and new construction and that the applicant is proposing
demolishing the existing house and replacing it with a new residence, demolishing an existing stable
and replacing with a new stable, and introducing an extensive corral and riding ring. She stated the
project requires a Site Plan Review, a Conditianal Use Permit and a Variance. Assistant Planner
Stewart stated that for the Site plan Review the residence that is being proposed is 9,1�5 square feet,
which is approximately double the size of the existing residence, a basement of 2,525 square feet and
1,495 square feet of covered porches. She indicated there is also a 900 square foot garage that would
fa11 under the Site Plan Review and reviewed the elevataons. She reviewed the proposed layout and
elevations for the stable. She stated a Variance is required for the project as the existing candition of
the property is 58.94% disturbance and that the disturbance is high as the property used to be
considerably larger and was subdivided into two properties. She explained that when the property was
subdivided the disturbance exceeded the 40% disturbance that was allawec� and that a large percentage
of the S1% disturbance for the proposed project is for equestrian uses specifically. Assistant Planner
Stewart indicated a resident inquired about the project; however, staff was not able ta connect with
him. She indicated the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and the findings were provided in
the staff report.
Tavisha Ales, Civil Engineer, Bolton Engineering, coinanented that the major item was the disturbance
being at $1% and that the maj ority of this was for equestrian purpases; corral, and riding ring. She
sta#ed that the f eld visit will provide a silhouette of the site that will assist the Planning Commission to
view the site better.
Assistant Planner Stewart pro�ided additional in�ormation on the existing guest house. She stated that
the guest house is larger than the allowable S00 square feet as this was formerly the primary residence
on the property and constructed prior to the incorporation af the City. She indicated the garage and
parking area are next to the guest house, which the current code would not allow; however, it was
allowed then.
Dimitri Bizoumis, 30 Portuguese Bend Road, commented on the 81% of disturbance being outside of
the City's guidelines. He expressed concern over the large 10,000 to 15,000 square foot homes being
constructed.
In response to Mr. Bizoutnis' comment, Chairman Chelf confirmed the 81% disturbance was outside
of the City's guidelines and that each case is reviewed individually.
Following staff s presentafiion and public testimo�y, the rnembers of the Planning Commission
deternlined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission
with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 918 at 20 Upper Blackwater
Canyon Road. The pubiic hearing was continued.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING
ZONING CASE NO. 923. REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER
PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING. Request to modify a previously appraved project
and request for a Site Plan Review for grading to reshape the previously approved swimming
pool building pad and Variances to allow the use of non-permitted imported d�rt, to reconstruct
a slope to steeper than 2:1 gradient and to export dirt, in Zoning Case No. 923 at 38
Partuguese Bend Road, (Lot �1 S-RH}, Rolling Hills, CA. (Wheeler). The project has been
deteimined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Envixax�mental
(CEQA) Guidelines.
-4-
Minutes
Plarming Commission Meeting
OS-15-17
At the request of the applicant, consideratian of this matter was continued to the September 19, 2017
Planning Commission Meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. The public hearing was continued.
ZOloTING CASE NO. 9�1, Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an attached garage
addition and a Conditional Use Permit for a new approximately 1,200 square foot two-story
stable and 3,510 square foot corral. The subject property is 7 Middleridge Lane South (Lot
249-A-UR) Rolling Hills, CA, (McCarthy/Cheng). CEQA Categorical Exemption under Class 3,
Section 15303.
Chairman Che�f introduced the item and asked for stai�s coixtments. Assistant PZanner 5tewart
� reviewed the applicant's request in Zaning Case No. 931 a� 7 Middleridge Lane Soutla. She sta.ted tha.t
the Planning Commission visited the property on a field visit this morning, August 15, 2017. Assistant
Pianner Stewart sta�ed theze was a new garage addition, new stable ana coz7ral being proposed. She
stated the project requires a Site Plan Review for the garage addition and Conditional Use Permit far
the stable and corral. 5he stated the caverages, disturbances and grading were all withir� fhe �iznits of
the Zor�ing Code. Assistant Planner �tewart indicated that two neighbors expressed concern with the
location of the stable; however, both concerns were resolved in the field. She stated the project is
cat�gorically exempt frozn CEQA and that the findings were provided in the staff xeport.
Following discussion, Commission�r Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to
prepare a Resolution granting approval af the applicant's request in Zoning Case 931 at 7 Middleridge
Lane South with the standa�rd findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cooley
seconded the mofFon, whi.ch carried without objection.
ZONING CA�E NO. 929. Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code to amend Section 17.12.220 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions) And Replace
Chapter 17.26 {View Preservation) with a New Ordinance, in Zoning Case No. 929 and Zoning
Code Amendment No. 20�7-01. The Project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15031(B)(3),
1506Q(C)(3}, and 15061(B)(3).
And
Consideration of a Plazuung Commission Resolutia�No. 2017-15A or 2017-15B recommending
m_ that the City Council ad.opt the View Preserva�ion Ordinance.
Chairman Chelf introduced tlae item and asked for staf�s comment. Plaruung Director Schwarkz gave
a summary af the View �'reservatior� Ordinance and stated that public comments were received after
the last Planning Commission meeting was held and distributed to tl�.e Planning Commission and the
public. She stated that Assistant City Attorney Karpeles drafted two versions of the Resolution,
Resolution No. 2017-15A and Rssolutio�.No. 2017-15B. She explained that Resolution No. 2017-15A
allowed a co�nplaint ta be heard by the Planning Commission's Committee on Txees and Views and
that Resolution No. 2017-15B included one more step xn the process by allowing complaints to be
heard by the City Cauncil if the complainant was not safisfied with the Committee on Trees and
Views' advisory opinion.
As�istant City Attorney Karpeles pxovided a sumr�iary of the staff report and indicated tkat staff
included the illustrations that wexe recommended to the Planning Commission; and staff bolstered the
"Principles and Intent" section formally known as the "Purpose and Intent" Section to include the
principles fhat wexe fozmulated by the Ad Hoc Committee. She stated that changes to the Resalution
included the addition of shade to the "Considerations for Applying the View Equity Ordinance" listed
in Section 17.26.050 of the proposed Resolution. She indicated that staff also included,pwrsuant to the
Plaa�ning Commission's request, a modification to the definition of"Viewing Point" to expla,i.n that a
prunary �iving area or acfive �se area af a primary residence is the sole location from where a view
may be enjoyed to differentiate those locations from minor rooms wi�liout having to create a definifixon
for minor rooms. She reviewed additianal changes that staff incorporated which were clarificatians
�^� regarding arbitration and whether the cost o�arbitratian would be on a case by case basis or would be
uniformly applied. 5he sta.ted tha# the Planning Commission directed that any rexmbwrsement related
to arbitration would be uni�ormly applied and that this coz�rectaon was made to Section 17.2�.040 D.
Arbitration, Subsec�ion 3.
In �esponse ta Chairman Chelf s questaon, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that she wauld
recommend that the Planning Gomrnission a11ow the City Council to deternune whether the fee will be
on a sliding scale or whether it will be a base atnount. She stated tha� although staff has discussed a
fee amount, ultimately it wou�d be set b� City Council Resolution, Assistant City Attorney Ka�rpeles
revi.ewed the two versions of the proposed Resolutions.
_�_
Miriutes
Planning Commission Meeting
08-15-17
Chairman Chelf called for public comment.
Lynn Gill, 31 Chuckwagon Road, comanented that he provided written comments to the Planning
Commission. He stated that th.e Ad Hoc Committee developed a process in a DRAFT ordinance that
clearly stated the two property rights that every resident of the City would enjoy when they moved into
the City, which are the rights to the �view that you purchased and the right to keep the vegetation that
you purchased. Mr. Gill reviewed the list of items that the Ad Hoc Carnmittee recommended and were
considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Giil indicated that the docu�nent that was brought back
from the Planning Co�unission maintained the right to the view that a praperty owner purchased;
however, it took away the property right to the vegetation that was purchased. He stated that these
rights were not clearly stated on circle Page 16. Mr. Gill stated that there was no direction on how to
use "a description of the type and location of all vegetation" referenced on circle Page 21. He
requested that the Planning Commission use the Ad Hac Committee's document that clearly stated the
two rights and to use the document as the default document. Mr. Gill e�pressed concern that the
language recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee was zemoved frorn the DRAFT ordinance.
Discussion ensued aYnong the Planning Commission and Mr. Crill concerning vegetation and tree
rights; the language "the �iew you bought is the view you ge#" and "the tree you baught is the tree you
get" and how tfl allow both rights if they conflict wii�h each other; and enfarcement of obligations by an
advisory body.
Mr. Gill provided a document to the Planning Coxnmission entitled"Zoning and Planning Law Report"
and cornmented that a property owner's view rights should be clearly stated in an ordinance.
Discussian ensued among the Planning Comrnission concerning the different versions of the DRAFT
ardinance and the potential conflict of view rights versus vegetation rights of property owners.
Norm Miller, 4 Chesterfield Road, com�nented that his neighbar, Mr. Gill has invested a large amount
of his tirne reviewing the DRAFT ordinance. He complirnented the Planning Co�nmission for
conducting civil meetings and the Assistant City Attorney for drafting the ordinance. Mr. Miller stated
that the need for a mediator, a hearing before the Committee on Trees and Views, and a hearing before
the City Council were not necessary, and that only one advisory body should be designated. He
suggest�d that Committee on Trees and Views be the only advisory body.
In response to Mr. Miller's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles explained the definition of
restorati�e action is the conditions that the Committee on Trees and Views, or the mediator, deternune
need to be taken in order ta restore the seeker's view.
Discussion ensued concerning the dispute resolution process as it relates to requesting assistance fram
an arborist, and the factors to consider in determining the appropriate restorative action referenced on
circle Page 24.
Bea Dieringer, 7 Buggy Whip Drive, thanked the Planning Commission far their work on the DRAFT
ordinance. She commented on the following sections of the staff report and DRAFT Ordinance as
follows: 1} Circle Page 3 —Consider adding "ar other beneficial factors provided by the vegetation"to
"The City shall also establish a list of factors to be considered in deterrnining appropriate actions to
restore views while preserving the rights of property owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy or
shade provided by vegetation on a praperry;" 2} Circle Page 3 - The deletion of the last sentence in"It
is the intent of the City that the provisions of this chapter are thoughtfully and reasonably applied so as
to strike an equitable balance between the right to reasonable use of one's property and the right to
protection against unreasonable loss af views. It is not �the intent of the City to encourage the clear
cutting or substantial denuding of any property �f its trees by overzealous ap�lication of the provisions
of this Chaper" 3) Circle Page 4 "Pre-E�sting View"— She inquired about enforcement and having an
acquisition date provided specificity as opposed to the language"�iew that existed at any time;" and 4)
Ms. Dieringer commented that the City should encourage residents to maintain their #rees; 5} Circle
Page 5 "View Impairment" — The deletion of the wards "significant interference" that may conflict
with Circle Page 22, Section C.4.d.iii, and encou.rage nan-significant complaints; 6) Circie Page 6
"Viewing point" — She expressed concern that there are no limitations to the language "any view;' 7)
Circle Page 23 Sectian 17.26.OS0 — She expressed concern with the considerations for applying the
view preservation ordinance to determine that a pre-existing �iew has been significantly obstructed;
and S} Circle Page 24, Section B.8. and B.9. — She expressed concern that these sections are not
factors.
-6-
Minutes
Planning Cornrnission Meeting
08-15-17
In �esponse to Ms. Dieringer's inquixy, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles explained the zzrtent in circle
Page 24, Section B9 was ta pz�event a resident from delaying a cornplaint. .
Fred Lorig, 1 Spur Lane, e�ressed concern with Ms. Dieringer providing comments since she will be
reviewing the DRAFT ordinance as a City Councilmembex. He commented that the ordinance is only
advisory,therefore,the City will not be able to enforce it.
Mr. Gill further commented that the "New Sunset Western Garden Book" referenced on circle Page 24
sha�uld be deleted.
Discussion ensued concerning which arborist's opinion should be considered when restorative ac#ians
are being discussed, the definirion of"Pre-Ea�isting View," and considerations for applying the view
preservation ordinance.
C�iairman Chelf called for a brief recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:04
p.xr�.
Hearing no further public comment, Chaartnan Chelf stated that the Planning Commission would move
to reviewing�he DRAFT ordi.x�ance.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles asked the Planning Commission which Resolution they would like to
consider. Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred to consider Resolution No. 24�7-
15B, which includes review af a case be the City Council, on appeal.
Princapdes cand Intent
As�istant City Attorney Karpeles discussed adding the langua.ge "or other benefits provided by
vegeta.tian on the property"to the end of the following sentence: "Tbe City sha11 also establish a list of
faci:ors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to restore views while preserving the rights
of property owners by not unreasonably reducing privacy or shade provided by vegetation on a
property" to "...privacy or shade or other benefts provided by vegeta.tion on a property." FolZowing
discussion, the Planning Commxssion concurred that the language be added.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles inquired if the Plann:mg Commission had any objection to the
language that was stricken from the Principles and Intent section as indicated on circ�e Page 3 and
continued to circXe Page 4. The Planning Cominission concurred that the language be stricken as
presented.
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles inquired if the Plazxning Commission would �ike to arnend the
definition of "Pre-Existing View" on circZe Page 32 "...zx�eans the view at any time since the
complainant's pro�erty was most recently purchased for fair market value..." The P1aiu2ing
Commission concurred to keep the language as is with no modification.
Assistant City Attorney Karpe�es inquired if the Planning Commissian would like to amend the
definition of "Viewing point" on circle Page 33 as there was a comment made stating that this
defini#ion of"Viewing point" might lead to uniimited views. Tb.e Planning Commission concurred to
keep the language as is with no modi�fication.
Vaeyv Impairment Dispute Resolutfon Process
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles inquired if the Planning Cornmission would like to remove the
mediation ste� on circle Page 34. The Planning Commission concurred to keep the language as is with
no modification.
Considerations for Applying the View Freservation Ordinance
Assistant City Attorney Karpeles asked if the Planning Commission would like to revise circle Page
39, Section 17.26.Q50, based on public comments made regarding rnaking this process clearer as these
will be points of contention. The Planning Commission concurred to revise the section by moving
Section B.8 and B.4. into Section A.
Assxstant Czty Attor�ney Karpeles inquired if the Planning Commission would like to include a
litigation section creating a private right of action under the ordinance. She stated that techn.ically
un.dex the civil code the conditions under the City's ordinance would qualify as a nuisance; therefare,
-7-
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
08-15-17
the parties could bring an action under the civil code relating back to the language of the City's
ordinance. Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred to add a litigation section
creating a private right of action.
Restorative Action
Planning Director Schwartz asked if the Planning Commission would like to add arborist language on
circle page 41, Section A as �ollows: "Topping as determined by a certified arborist." The Planning
Commission concurred not to add the arborist language.
Following public comment and discussion, staff w'as directed to amend the DRAFT ordinance per the
Planning Conu�ission's direction; adopt Resolution No. 2017-15B; and forward the matter to the City
Council for consideration at a future City Council Meeting. Commissioner Cooley secanded the
motion, which carried without objection.
SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS �5eptember 19, 2017)
The Planning Cornrnission scheduled a field trip to each of the following properties to be held on
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
52 Portuguese Bend Road
16 Pine Tree Lane
20 Upper Biackwater Canyon Road
OLD BUSINESS
None.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Report: "No further development" designation without Planning Cornmission review on certain
properties.
Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comment. Planning Director Schwartz
presented a surnrnary of the staff report. She discussed the restrictions on future development placed
on certaan properties during a discretionary review of a develo�ment project. Planning Director
Schwartz stated that this provision was placed in#he City's ordinance in 1993 authorizing the Planning
Commission to impose a condition on properties that any further development on properties needs to
come before the Planning Commission regardless of whether a Site Plan Review would be required or
not. In 2012 the restrictions were reiaxed to allow over the counter approvals for minor impro�ements.
She explained that if the condition was �laced on a development and the subject development was not
implemented, and it was found that the proposed praject did not require a discretionary pernut, staff
would then approve the project aver the counter an� place a note iri the file that the entitlement that
caused the condition to be placed was not implemented and, therefore, the restrictive development
condition no longer would apply.
Discussion ensued concerning expired permits, allowing a default automatic removal of a "no further
development clause" when no development has been implemented, and continuing to place
restrictions on those properties that require the Planning Commission's review.
Commissioner Cardenas commented that the "no further development" restriction is a valuable tool
and should not be eliminated. He stated that staff should be given discretion ta remove the restriction
when permits for an appraval have nat been acted on or partially acted on.
By consensus,the 1'lanning Comm�ssion received and filed this matter as presented.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
None.
AD]OURNMENT
Hearing no further business before the Planriing Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourrxed the meeting
at 9:35 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planniiig Co�unission scheduled to be held on
-8-
Minutes
Planning Comrnission Meeting
08-15-17
Tuesday, September 19, 2017 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose af conducting a site visit to 52
Portuguese Bend Road, 16 Pine Tree Lane and 20 Upper Backwater Canyon Road. The next regular
meeting af the Planning Commissian is scheduled to be held an Tuesday, September 19, 2017
beginning at�:30 p.m. in the Ci�y Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hal1, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Ralling Hills, California.
Respectfully submitted,
_. �_ ��fl�l� .
Yvette Hall
Interim City Clerk
Approved,
��
Bra Che f
Chairman
-9-
Minutes
Planning Commission Meehng
08�15-17