Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council receives two large planning files, asks questions about grading and neighborhood impacts
Summary
The council received a variance request for 5 Ringbit Road West and a site-plan review for a 12,000‑sq‑ft home at 80 Saddleback, prompting questions about lot constraints, grading (2:1 slopes and ~11,000 cu yd cut/fill), disturbed-area limits and neighbor concerns.
The Rolling Hills Estates City Council received two planning files from staff: a variance request for 5 Ringbit Road West (Zoning Case 25081) and a site-plan review and conditional-use permit package for 80 Saddleback Road (Zoning Case 24162).
For 5 Ringbit Road West staff explained that the applicant seeks variances to construct a pergola within a 50-foot front-yard setback and to waive a set-aside area for a stable and corral because the lot narrows into Klondike Canyon. The Planning Commission previously requested a redesign; the applicant removed one panel, reducing the pergola footprint from about 1,000 sq ft to 869.5 sq ft. Council asked staff to clarify neighbor concerns raised at the Planning Commission and pointed out a numerical error in the staff table about pad size; staff confirmed the building pad figure needed correction. No members of the public spoke on this item and Council voted to receive the file.
On the Saddleback site plan, staff described a proposed new 12,000‑sq‑ft residence with cabana, ADU, tennis court and stable/corral, on a property with two building pads (roughly 42,000 sq ft and 25,000 sq ft) and significant grading (approximately 11,000 cubic yards of cut and fill). The proposal includes a hammerhead driveway for fire access and an infinity pool. Council questioned the applicant’s team about the extent of 2:1 slope grading and whether grading choices were driven by disturbed-area limits or view preservation. The applicant’s architect and civil engineer said the grading and 2:1 slopes respond to site constraints (easements, fire-road requirements) and efforts to limit disturbed area and preserve slope character.
Staff noted the applications are receiving-file items and that certain accessory elements in the rear are ministerial and not discretionary. Council directed staff to continue coordination with planning and public safety and asked for clarified plan sheets and corrected numeric tables when the items return for formal action.
