MINUTES ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9, 2017

MINUTES ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 9, 2017 A adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, by CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Carman, Medawar, Scott, Thomas, Yoo, Chair Schachter Zigrang Planning Director Wahba, Associate Planner Thom, Senior Planner Naughton, Deputy City Attorney Thuyen 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER YOO, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2016. 5. AUDIENCE ITEMS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON TONIGHT S AGENDA AND ALL SUCH RESOLUTIONS SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. 1

COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER YOO, TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 6-A. 7. BUSINESS ITEMS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 20-16 APPLICANT: Ms. Judy Chai; LOCATION: 5338 Crest Road; A request for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (from Commercial-Limited to RA-10 Residential), Tentative Parcel Map, Grading Application and Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of two single-family homes on a.51-acre parcel. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is also requested under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (KT) Associate Planner Thom summarized the Staff Report (as per written material). COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked for confirmation that the presentation was the same as presented at the December 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with the exception of the height being lowered. Associate Planner Thom confirmed this and stated that the grading and the building height has been adjusted and has lowered the overall height of the building by about 3 feet. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER moved to, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Gary Maxwell, Architect, stated that the plans were revised by the engineer to satisfy the issue with the height which was brought up at the December Planning Commission meeting. Helen Cannefax, President, Seaview Villas Homeowners Association, stated that they would be most impacted by this development. One homeowner in particular, who was concerned with her view, is happy with the changes that were made to the height since her view will no longer be affected by this project. Ms. Cannefax stated that a meeting was held with the architect last Thursday which provided the homeowners a prior opportunity to see the drawings and express any concerns with the project. At the conclusion of the meeting, the homeowners were unanimously in favor of the project. Planning Director Wahba added that a comprehensive list, beyond the 500ft. radius, was put together and that all residents of Seaview Drive North and South were notified. 2

In response to a question from CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER, Associate Planner Thom responded that no opposition to the project was received. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER YOO to, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER YOO to, ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PA-20-16. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carman, Medawar, Scott, Thomas, Yoo, Chairman Schachter Zigrang Planning Director stated that this item is a recommendation for approval and will now be taken before the City Council. B. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 33-16 APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Mendelson; LOCATION: 4 Silver Saddle Lane; A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination and a Variance to install a 50 panel, 4 high ground-mounted solar array in the front yard. (JN) Planner Naughton summarized the Staff Report (as per written material). COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR to, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Erika Mendelson, Applicant, 4 Silver Saddle Lane, stated that at the beginning of the project, she wanted the panels to be installed on the roof but further discussing this with Mr. Mendelson, they were concerned that their neighbors may be affected by the reflection from the panels. The ideal location for the panels is in the backyard which is actually the front yard of the property. Morley Mendelson, Applicant, 4 Silver Saddle Lane, responded to a letter sent by the City Attorney regarding the section on setbacks. The location of the panels would be approximately 3

40 to 45 feet from the street, the land is 10 feet higher than the street, and there is a 5 foot fence around the perimeter of the property which was required by the City when the pool was installed. The panels would not be visible by the neighbors nor from the street. Mr. Mendelson clarified that the letter that was sent to the Planning Commission today was sent with the intention of putting his statements on record since the public hearing notice that he received stated in order to challenge the decision in court only those items presented at the public hearing would be heard. Mr. Mendelson added that due to a fire, the roof needed to be replaced and a Cal-Shake roof was installed. In order to install solar panels on the roof, the roof would need to be replaced and the cost would be approximately $70K. COMMISSIONER SCOTT inquired if any study was done to indicate if there would be a reflection into a neighbor s house. Mr. Mendelson responded that he has not done such a study. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER asked if it is Mr. Mendelson s position that the States rules supersede the right of the local agency to regulate this issue. Mr. Mendelson responded no, the local agency is allowed to make reasonable restrictions, but stated that he believes that AB 2188 was intended for homeowners associations and the law is unclear. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER referred to Government Section Code 65850.5 (l)(c) and inquired if the definition could be interpreted to require that a solar energy system is required to be installed on a house. Mr. Mendelson replied that it could suggest that it is a requirement, however, installation in the rear yard and side yard may also be allowed if the setback requirements are met. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER asked Mr. Mendelson about his other alternatives. Mr. Mendelson replied that the alternative would be to replace the roof and install the solar panels on the roof, which would double the cost of the project. COMMISSIONER YOO asked about the height of the solar panel poles. Mr. Mendelson replied that at the highest point, it is four feet. COMMISSIONER YOO asked if there would be a problem with access to the northwest corner of the lot in the case of a fire. Mr. Mendelson replied that there would be no issue. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that in order to make best use of the array, trees may need to be trimmed. Mr. Mendelson stated that there is a clear path to the sun most of the day. Senior Planner Naughton clarified that Government Code Section 65850.5 (l)(c) regarding solar energy installation on single family or duplex dwellings and stated that AB 2188 amended Government Code Section 65850.5, which created an expedited permitting process for small roof mounted solar systems that are 10kw or less. Senior Planner Naughton stated that this specific section of code only applies to small roof mounted systems. In a response to a question from COMMISSIONER SCOTT, Senior Planner Naughton 4

responded that the system for this application is 16kw. In a response to a question from CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER, Senior Planner Naughton stated that there are protections for ground mounted solar systems as long as they meet health and safety standards and requirements of the local jurisdiction, however, the specific section of code referenced is specific to smaller roof top mounted systems. In a response to a question from COMMISSIONER SCOTT, Senior Planner Naughton stated that the ground mounted protections may be found in Government Code 65850.5 (a) through (3). Assuming that the City s zoning code requirements and health and safety standards were met, this project would have received administrative approval. In a response to a question from COMMISSIONER THOMAS, Planning Director Wahba stated that there are ground mounted solar systems in the City, but they are in rear yards. Todd Fanady, Ameco Solar, responded to an earlier question regarding the reflection and stated that in the summer, the reflection would go straight up and in the winter it would tilt to the north. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR asked if it is one panel. Mr. Fanady responded that yes, it is one array with 50 panels total. Richard Gerlach, 32 Santa Bella Rd., stated that he originally was opposed to the project but after visiting the site, he agreed as it would not be visible from the street and is in favor of the applicant being granted a variance. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR to, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER SCOTT directed a question to Deputy City Attorney Thuyen and asked for confirmation that Government Code Section 65850 does nothing to protect solar installations. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen agreed. COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked Deputy City Attorney Thuyen if he agrees with staff s interpretation of Government Code Section 65850.5 (a)(b) pertaining to ground mounted systems. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen stated that the City is not limited from implementing their health and safety standards and ordinances for these types of installations and stated that the State did not want unreasonable restrictions based on aesthetics. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen stated it was not the States intention to take away the City s power to administer health and safety regulations. COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked for clarification on Government Code Section 65850.5 (g) 5

which is interpreted as intending to limit the City s ability to implement neighborhood compatibility standards to ban the aesthetic impact. In addition Government Code Section 65850.5 (a)(b), that installation of these systems are allowed given that they meet local health and safety requirements. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen agreed with both statements. COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked for confirmation that Civil Code Section 714 (a) does not really impact the City. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen agreed. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that the project is in the front yard and should the landscaping fail in the future, then the solar array would be visible through the fence. COMMISSIONER CARMAN inquired about Public Resources Code Section 25981 (d) and asked if anyone had done the calculation. Senior Planner Naughton stated that the calculation was done and it was discussed with the Building Official who stated that Building and Safety does not use this requirement in their review of ground mounted systems. Planning Director Wahba added that other agencies were contacted including County Regional Planning and no one had heard of this particular requirement. COMMISSIONER YOO asked if the cost is the only factor prohibiting the applicant from installing the system on the roof. Planning Director Wahba responded yes. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER asked if there are any other government agencies where this issue has been raised. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen responded no and stated that this is the reason why the City had to look into Public Resources Code for examples and believes that the City s position on this item is consistent with State law. CHAIRMAN SCHACTER asked if it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the placement of the panels would fall under health and safety guidelines. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen stated that setback requirements are put into place for reasons of health and safety. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR commented that granting this variance would set a standard and would be a concern with regards to future applications. Deputy City Attorney Thuyen clarified that there are two issues before the planning commission. First, if the City can apply its zoning regulations and setback requirements to all residences and if so, if there is enough to justify a variance. The City does have a right to enforce the setback requirements, so the decision is whether there are grounds to approve a variance. Cost is not a factor to support a variance. COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR stated that properties in this particular neighborhood are custom homes and this will be a consideration in reaching his decision. COMMISSIONER YOO asked if the rear yard square footage was lost due to improvements made to the property. Planning Director Wahba stated that original house was likely built in the 50 s under LA County s jurisdiction and at the time the setbacks were much shorter. Additional 6

improvements were made in the late 80 s to early 90 s including a pool in the front yard, but this is a common pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of this neighborhood. Solar panels in the front yard are not found anywhere in the City. CHAIRMAN SHACHTER stated that under a legal point of view, the City has the authority to regulate this and in terms of a variance, a major concern is the impact this will have on future projects. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER stated that he understands the issue with the property, but at this time, it does not justify approval. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that the City is not compelled by law to approve this project. In order to approve the variance findings, there need to be unique conditions to deny use of another location and the roof is a good alternative, although expensive. Cost is not a unique factor in variance determinations and suggested that the applicants may choose to bring their case before the City Council. In a response to a question by CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER, Deputy City Attorney Thuyen stated that if the Planning Commission agrees with staff s recommendation, then approval of the resolution would include the findings, which would include that the front setback cannot be used for solar panel system installation. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER YOO to, DENY PA-33-16. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Carman, Medawar, Scott, Yoo, Chairman Schachter Thomas Zigrang Planning Director stated that staff will bring back a Resolution (No. 33-16) formally denying this application at the next Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2017. After the approval, the applicant will have a 20-day appeal period to the City Council. 9. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that the trail across the street from the old Country Club is blocked by rocks and landscaping. Planning Director Wahba stated that this be removed with the new horse trail. COMMISSIONER SCOTT stated that on the east side of Narbonne at the bottom of the course before Montecillo homes begin, the trail is blocked by a new vinyl fence. Planning Director Wahba stated that he will look into this. 7

COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR asked if the County could be contacted to clean out the storm drains on his street. Planning Director Wahba stated that he will look into this. 10. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Planning Director Wahba introduced Carol Corea, the new Administrative Assistant. Planning Director Wahba stated that there will be a Planning Commission and City Council joint first-look meeting on Tuesday, January 24 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss a potential boutique hotel at the back side of the Peninsula Shopping Center. COMMISSIONER SHACHTER asked about Peninsula Point. Senior Planner Naughton stated that the applicant has modified their proposal and they will be coming back before the Planning Commission next month. 11. MATTERS OF INFORMATION A. PARK AND ACTIVITIES MINUTES, MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2016. COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER MEDAWAR, TO RECEIVE AND FILE ITEMS 11-A There being no objection, CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER SO ORDERED. 13. ADJOURNMENT At 8:10 p.m. CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to February 6 th, 2017. Carol Corea Minutes Secretary Douglas R. Prichard City Clerk 8