Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council over drainage, cisterns and lot‑disturbance in large Forrester Lane rebuild
Summary
Council received and filed Planning Commission approval of zoning case 26‑37, a major reconstruction and variance to permit 63.49% lot disturbance for a Forrester Lane property; residents questioned drainage, geotechnical reviews, and the adequacy and public availability of county plan documents.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rolling Hills City Council on Monday received and filed Planning Commission approval for zoning case 26‑37, a de novo review of a proposal to demolish an existing house and construct a 5,837‑square‑foot residence with a larger building pad, pool, retaining walls and a variance allowing 63.49% lot disturbance.
Planning Manager Whitney Berry told the council that county reviewers required extra geotechnical borings and that drainage changes were made, including cisterns sized to capture a defined storm frequency. “The drainage has been...changed to include cisterns on the property that are sized to a certain storm water, storm frequency and size that can accommodate,” Berry said, describing county‑required mitigation.
Neighbors pressed for more documentation and raised safety concerns tied to local slow‑moving land movement. Resident Dustin McNabb told the council the record was unclear on cistern sizing and project plans; he said a staff number indicated “1,200 cubic feet, which is 8,900 gallons,” and contrasted that with much larger cisterns used at a nearby 23 Crest Road East project. James Bellas and Alfred Visco argued that routinely granting large variances weakens development standards; Visco warned that additional runoff could worsen landslide risk for downslope properties.
Council members and staff reiterated that geotechnical and final permit review falls under Los Angeles County Building and Safety, not the city's zoning code, and that the planning commission had the evidence needed to make the required findings. After discussion and public comment the council voted to receive and file the Planning Commission's approval; staff noted updated resolutions and public comments had been posted to the record.
