Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reapproves large rebuild at 4 Spur Lane amid landslide and drainage concerns
Summary
The commission approved reapproval of a demolition and reconstruction at 4 Spur Lane (zoning case 26-37) including variances to exceed the 40% disturbance limit. Multiple neighbors urged a moratorium and independent slope analyses, citing historic land movement and drainage impacts; staff emphasized county geotechnical approvals are still required.
The Rolling Hills Planning Commission voted to reapprove the proposed demolition and reconstruction at 4 Spur Lane, endorsing site plan review and a variance to exceed the 40% disturbance allowed under city guidance (the project was described as reaching approximately 63% disturbed area).
Staff and the applicant presented the project as a de novo hearing because prior entitlements expired. The application seeks to demolish an existing residence, expand the building pad (nearly doubling it), construct a new approximately 5,535-square-foot home, a three-car garage and a pool with retaining walls. Staff noted prior planning commission approval and that some county-level plan checks (notably geotechnical approvals for retaining walls and grading) remained outstanding.
Architect Luis de Morais and civil engineer Dan Bolton described delays caused by county plan-checks and additional borings required after local land movement was observed. Bolton said the design now includes a storage approach intended to prevent an increase in runoff: "We're proposing a storage tank of 12,000 cubic feet to make sure that there's no increase in runoff relative to the existing conditions," he said. Bolton and the applicant team told commissioners they expect final septic and county approvals to follow once reports are complete.
Multiple residents urged caution, called for a moratorium on new permits in landslide-affected areas, and asked for independent third-party slope-stability analysis paid for by the applicant. James Bellis urged commissioners to visit affected properties and described ongoing foundation damage and a growing crack across his property. Melissa McNabb and Alfred Visco questioned whether revised plans (septic, drainage tank, inlet locations) had been made available to the public in advance and emphasized potential downstream effects of rechanneling water into natural drainage courses.
Commissioners said they must rely on county geotechnical and plan-check expertise for technical determinations and noted that permitting remains contingent on county approvals. After deliberation a motion to approve (resolution 2026-03, amended to 2026-05 on the floor) was made, seconded and approved by roll call. Staff reminded the commission that where county or utility approvals remain outstanding, the applicant cannot pull building permits until those outside approvals are satisfied.
