Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council receives planning commission approval for 7,050‑sq‑ft home at 1 Stormhill Lane

Rolling Hills City Council · August 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council received and filed the Planning Commission’s 4‑0 approval of a site‑plan review for a new 7,050 sq. ft. single‑family residence at 1 Stormhill Lane, including a condition limiting tree and shrub height to protect neighbor views.

The Rolling Hills City Council received and filed a Planning Commission approval for a single‑family site‑plan review at 1 Stormhill Lane.

Staff summarized the project history and approvals: a 7,050‑square‑foot residence with an attached three‑car garage, basement, pool, accessory dwelling unit and non‑exempt grading that will be balanced on‑site. Staff noted lot‑line adjustments, a new cul‑de‑sac completed in 2024, and that the project conforms to zoning limits on lot coverage and pad disturbance. The Planning Commission approved the project 4‑0 on June 16, 2026 and included a condition limiting landscape plant heights so they do not exceed the primary structure’s roof ridgeline.

Applicant representative Jay Aluwalia, president of Storm Properties, attended and offered to answer questions: "I am the president of storm properties and wanna thank Whitney for all her support and help on this project," he told council. Council members reviewed plan details, asked about dashed setback lines on the plans and confirmed the setback and grading scheme. After a short public hearing — with the applicant and architect present — a council member moved to receive and file the Planning Commission action; the vote carried.

Staff said the project was found CEQA‑exempt as a single family residence with accessory structures and noted one written neighbor comment about species and mature height of proposed trees; the Planning Commission added the planting‑height condition in response.