Loading...
05-11-2020_CCAgendaPacket1.CALL TO ORDER 2.ROLL CALL 3.COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN BY EMAIL IN REAL TIME - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME This is the appropriate time for members of the public to make comments regarding the items on the consent calendar or items not listed on this agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, no action will take place on any items not on the agenda. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. 4.A.APPROVAL OF MINUTES. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 AGENDA Regular Council Meeting CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 11, 2020 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 7:00 PM This meeting is held pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 17, 2020. All Councilmembers will participate by teleconference. Public Participation: City Hall will be closed to the public until further notice. A live audio of the City Council meeting will available on the City’s website (http://www.rolling-hills.org/). The meeting agenda is on the City’s website (https://www.rolling- hills.org/government/city_council/city_council_agendas.php). Members of the public may submit comments in real time by emailing the City Clerk at ycoronel@cityofrh.net. Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. Please provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information (i.e., phone numbers, addresses, etc.) that you do not want to be published. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 02-10-20CCDraftMinutes 1 4.B.PAYMENT OF BILL. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 4.C.CONSIDER AND APPROVE UPDATED CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. 4.D.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ROLLING HILLS 2020 RELIABILITY REPORT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Southern California Edison Rolling Hills 2020 Circuit Reliability Report. 5.COMMISSION ITEMS 5.A.CONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 400 SQUARE-FOOT LAP SWIMMING POOL WITH SPA IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report. 6.PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 7.OLD BUSINESS 7.A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN ENHANCED PROPOSAL FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT IN THE PRESERVE IN THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY BORDER. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the Land Conservancy's proposal for fire fuel removal in the Preserve; direct staff to execute an agreement with the Land Conservancy; and fund the work using monies set aside for capital improvements for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. 02-24-20CCDraftMinutes 03-09-20CCDraftMinutes 03-23-20CCDraftMinutes 03-30-20CCDraftMinutes 04-13-20CCDraftMinutes_Joint CC and PC 04-27-20CCDraftMinutes Payment of Bills 20-21 Committee Assignments_DRAFT.pdf SCE_ReliabilityReport2019 Resolution_2020-03_52_Portuguese_Bend_Road_ZC_20-03.pdf 52 Portuguese Bend Road Site Plan.pdf 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PHOTOS.pdf PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project RH 2020-Update.docx RH_Map_1.pdf RH_Map_2.pdf 2 7.B.ACCEPT THE SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE II AS COMPLETE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE 8" SEWER MAIN ALONG PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accepts the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase II as complete and direct staff to procure engineering services to proceed with design of the 8" sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road. 8.NEW BUSINESS 8.A.ACCEPT THE FY 2019-2020 TRAFFIC SIGNING, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECT AS COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO BE FILED WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. Accept the FY 2019-2020 Traffic Signing, Striping, Pavement Marking Project as complete and in accordance with the contract plans and specifications; 2. File Notice of Completion with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office; and 3. Release retention as final payment to PCI after the expiration of the lien period. 8.B.CONSIDER AND APPROVE FINANCE/BUDGET/AUDIT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO INVESTMENT, FINANCIAL, BUDGET, DEBT AND ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICIES, AND SCHEDULE OF FEE AND CHARGES. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee’s recommended changes to the Investment, Financial, Budget, Debt, Asset Capitalization policies and the Schedule of Fee and Charges. 8.C.CONSIDER LAYOUT OPTIONS TO BRING EXISTING RESTROOMS AT CITY HALL TO COMPLY WITH ADA CODES, AND SELECT AN OPTION TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on the options developed to bring the restrooms at City Hall to RH Sewer Area Study 20191016-Updated 20191219-Updated 20200504-Complete_v2.pdf 2019-2020 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule.pdf AssetCapitalization_Policy_Resolution No. 953.pdf Financial_Policies.pdf Investment_Policy.pdf Finance Budget Audit Comittee Notes 04-27-20.docx 3 comply with ADA codes, select an option, and direct staff to proceed with development of design plans. 8.D.CONSIDER AND APPROVE A THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on a proposed three year Capital Improvement Plan and direct staff to include the plan as a part of the annual budget going forward. 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF None. 11.ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. via teleconference. ADA_Restrooms_Options_2020_May.pdf CIP_3Years_2020-May-08.pdf Notice: Public Comment is welcome on any item prior to City Council action on the item. Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. 4 Agenda Item No.: 4.A Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:YOHANA CORONEL, CITY CLERK THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented ATTACHMENTS: 02-10-20CCDraftMinutes 02-24-20CCDraftMinutes 03-09-20CCDraftMinutes 03-23-20CCDraftMinutes 03-30-20CCDraftMinutes 04-13-20CCDraftMinutes_Joint CC and PC 04-27-20CCDraftMinutes 5 -1- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 07:01p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers Present:Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:Black. Others Present:Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director Yohana Coronel, City Clerk Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Chris Sarabia, Land Conservancy Conservation Director Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road Mrs. Toshiko Nakamura, 24 Cinchring Road 3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME NONE. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A.MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 27, 2018 AND REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 09, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B. CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 1248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED 6 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -2- C.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 1249 THAT SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE TO ADJUST THE MAXIMUM CITY CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 THROUGH 2024. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED D. PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the consent items as presented with amendments to the minutes. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 5.COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. Mayor Mirsch requested that Old Business Item 7B be heard first due to a guest present in the audience. (Out of Order) 7.OLD BUSINESS B. RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION FROM THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY ON THE ACACIA AND MUSTARD PLANTS REMOVAL WORK IN THE PRESERVE. Land Conservancy staff Chris Sarabia introduced himself and gave an update on the removal of the Acacia and Mustard plants in the preserve via PowerPoint presentation. He reported to the Council that the project was to remove two acres of Acacia and mow over sixteen acres of Mustard plants. This was to be followed up with annual mowing for three years, beginning in 2020 and site maintenance to minimize Mustard Plant regrowth. He informed the Council that some areas were hard to reach and therefore the Conservancy had to deploy hand-crews to mow. He further stated that the Conservancy crew was trained to recognize native plants and worked carefully around them. The crew also noticed Milkweed growing back which is essential to the Monarch Butterfly’s survival. Mr. Sarabia pointed out that careful measures were taken in order to prevent habitat impacts. Mayor Mirsch asked if the Conservancy used any chemicals to prevent regrowth of certain plants and trees. 7 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -3- Mr. Sarabia replied that very minimal chemicals were used. Rather than treating certain areas with chemicals, the Conservancy closely monitors for regrowth. Using Chemicals is not the Conservancy’s first choice. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper requested that the Conservancy submit a timeline of when the residents should mow the Acacia. He suggested that staff provide the information in the City’s Blue Newsletter. Mayor Mirsch asked for public comment. Alfred Visco, resident of 15 Cinchring Road stated that from the view of his home some Mustard plants had not been completely removed. Mr. Sarabia replied that the areas noted by Mr. Visco should have been mowed. He asked Mr. Visco if it was possible that the Rim Trail was in front of the Mustard line. Mr. Visco answered that the Rim Trail winds in and out of the Mustard plants and felt that the Conservancy should have cleared the Mustard plants. He noted that the Conservancy’s crew did not follow the polygon lines. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if the Conservancy could come up with a “next-phase” plan for fire reduction for Rolling Hills. Mayor Mirsch suggested that the Conservancy remove plants for fire mitigation rather than removing them based on type. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the difficulties of entering the site to perform the work. Mr. Sarabia replied that the crew had entered from properties on Cinchring Road. Councilmember Dieringer asked for clarification on the polygons referenced in Mr. Sarabia’s presentation. Mr. Sarabia showed areas where the Conservancy had mowed and removed plants and the hard to reach areas via shapes on presentation slides or polygons. Mayor Mirsch noted that Lemonade Berry is not an endangered plant and inquired regarding the Conservancy’s treatment of the plant. Mr. Sarabia stated the Lemonade Berry would only be removed if the County Ag Commissioner viewed it as a fire hazard. If so, it would be documented, and a fee would be associated with the removal. Trimming of the Lemonade Berry is only conducted when necessary. Mr. Visco inquired if the Conservancy was willing to map existing vegetation for the City or possibly map selected canyons. He requested the City Council consider the service. 8 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -4- Councilmember Black arrived at 7:34 p.m. Mrs. Toshiko Nakamura, resident of 24 Cinchring, expressed disappointment with the community with respect to fire preparation. She requested the Council to consider a fence along the City border and grow ivy on the fence to stop the fire coming into the City. From experience she noted that residents on Cinchring are the biggest victims when it comes to wildfires. Mayor Mirsch thanked Mrs. Nakamura for her comments. Mr. Sarabia stated that his hope was that the efforts being made by the Land Conservancy would help with fire mitigation. He also added that RPV had doubled their enforcement by having Rangers and Volunteers actively patrol the area. Councilmember Black added that he has never witnessed anyone patrolling the area. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper informed Councilmember Black that the Conservancy was asked to work on a “second-phase” vegetation management plan. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Preserve was patrolled by vehicle or on foot. Mr. Sarabia replied both, by vehicle and on foot. Enforcement officers are in uniform and conduct random checks throughout the week. Mr. Sarabia recommended reporting issues in the Preserve to the Rangers and/or volunteers. Mrs. Nakamura commented that she observed over 20 motorcycles in the area during the nighttime. Mayor Mirsch thanked Mrs. Nakamura for her comments and asked that Mrs. Nakamura’s comments be logged and communicated to RPV. City Manager Jeng requested the City Council to take Item 8A-New Business out of order so as to be able to dismiss the Finance Director before the end of the Council meeting. The Mayor and City Council concurred. (Out of Order) 8.NEW BUSINESS A.REVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2018/2019 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. Finance Director Terry Shea gave an overview of the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Audited Financial Statements. Lance, Soll & Lunghard LLP (LSL) audited the City’s financial records including a review of internal controls and testing procedures. Audit results were presented to the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee in December 2019. There were no issues or findings reported by the auditors 9 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -5- Councilmember Dieringer noted that on page 129 of the staff report that the firm was not engaged to report on several items listed. She then questioned if the Council should seek the auditors to report on those items. Finance Director Shea replied that it was his opinion that LSL was not correct with that statement because LSL clearly stated in the letter labeled Independent Auditor’s Report, page 136, providing an opinion on the governmental activities (debt and capital assets), major funds (general fund, transit fund and the underground utility fund) and all the other funds. He clarified LSL does not provide an opinion on RSI and management discussions. He assured the Council that he would follow up with LSL to clarify the language. Councilmember Dieringer recalled the Finance Director offering an option of internal control. She recalled the option was going to be explored but did not recall if it was ever brought back to the Council. Finance Director Shea assured the Council that the City does have effective internal control for staff. For example, the Council signs all the checks; the City Manager and/or Department Heads approve all the invoices. The Finance Department does not approve any invoices. He offered to go back to last year’s City Council meeting minutes and confirm the discussion on internal control options. Councilmember Dieringer stated best practices called for a rotation of auditors in order to have a fresh set of eyes. Finance Director Shea shared that three years ago the City only received cost proposals from 5 firms. Three out of the 5 firms were interviewed and Councilmember Black, who sat the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee, made the decision to hire LSL. He recalled the other committee member (Mirsch) was unavailable when the decision was made. He noted that there are three years left on LSL’s current contract and that LSL switched partners about two years ago. Per State law auditors must rotate partners every 6 years. Mayor Mirsch shared that she had finance background and still had trouble with government accounting. She stated that she felt it was important for the Council to understand the audit reports since they are responsible for signing off on the documents. She inquired about training to better prepare the Council for financial decisions. Finance Director Shea offered to conduct a workshop for the Council. Mayor Mirsch and Councilmember Dieringer stated they would both be interested in attending the workshop. Finance Director Shea continued to review the audit reports and highlighted pages 148-149, the City’s accruals. He reported that there were no issues reported by the Internal Control Letter. He moved on to the financial statements, page 150. The page listed the City’s total assets of $5,945,000 from the General Fund. Finance Director Shea reported the total liability to be $150,000, for a total Fund Balance of approximately $5.7 million. He reminded the Council that 10 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -6- the City has three major funds. Funds are determined by size and must be 10% of the assets, 10% of the liabilities, 10% of the revenues or 10% of the expenditures and 5% of the City’s franchise fund. The City’s trash fund meets these criteria. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Transit fund could be further explained. He asked is this the money the City gives away, trades, and/or sells at a discount. Finance Director Shea replied yes and explained that the Transit Fund has to do with Prop A and Prop C funds. The City gifts the Prop C money and sells the Prop A money. Finance Director Shea turned the Council’s attention to page 152 and explained that the General Fund took in $2,352,000 and spent $1,858,000 resulting in an excess of revenues of $493,000. He continued to review the rest of the reconciliation statements of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances of governmental funds for the year ending June 30, 2019. He reviewed the business type activity highlighted on page 154. He explained that the City receives money through the property tax rolls twice a year. The City then pays Republic Services. He stated that as of June 30, 2019 the City owed Republic Services $397,000. It was his understanding that amount was paid in early September 2019. City Manager Jeng explained that RH residents are charged $1,100 for trash services and that the City pays Republic Services approximately $1,295 per property for the current year. Councilmember Wilson asked what the difference was between the two fees. He further inquired if the City went by the number of parcels, because it is his understanding that there are about 685. Finance Director Shea replied the difference between the two fees was about $200.00. City Manager Jeng replied that historically the City used 685 number parcels but currently there are more parcels than 685. Councilmember Wilson stated that when he ran the math and multiplied $200.00 by 685, he came to a total of $13700.00. He was curious why that amount was not noted in the report and reported as a loss or reimbursement. Finance Director Shea replied that it was his understanding that there was a difference between the numbers of parcels the City has and the number of parcels charged. City Manager Jeng clarified that there was a difference between accounts placed on the tax roll and the Republic Service’s invoices to the City. Councilmember Wilson stated he understood but again stressed that he felt there should be representation of how much cost the City is absorbing regarding the resident’s trash service subsidy fee. Finance Director Shea replied he understood how the report could be slightly deceiving. 11 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -7- City Manager Jeng offered to work with Finance Director Shea to prepare a report that breaks down the information from year to year. She stated she would also share the break down report with the Solid Waste Committee. Finance Director Shea continued to report on the pension’s liabilities on page 187. He reported that the pension liability went down from $627,859.00 to $622,408.00. He pointed out how the liabilities numbers have changed throughout the years between 2015 through 2019. He stated that money was set-aside in the Pension Stabilization Trust for the increase in cost. He added the City currently had a total of approximately $400,000 in the account. He will be recommending more deposits into the Pension Stabilization Fund. He continued to page 189 and reviewed the OPEB assets. He stated that the OPEB net liability is an asset of $209,000.00. The last quarterly statement showed the City had over $600,000.00 in the account. Councilmember Dieringer asked the Finance Director if he had a recommendation for the Council as to the disparity between the Pension Stabilization Fund and the Liability Fund. Finance Director Shea replied that it was his understanding that the consensus from the Budget/Finance/Audit Committee was to recommend to the Council that they should set aside $150,000 for the upcoming budget. What was originally set aside was not enough and mentioned that the liabilities increased by 152%. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that is was his understanding that the City pays Republic Services in two parts. He asked if there was a way to pay Republic Services upfront and request a discount to future service rates. Finance Director Shea stated that some of his other clients pay vendors once the money is collected. Rolling Hills however gets billed by Republic Services in July for the first six months and then again in January for the second six months. He suggested exploring the possibility of changing the timing of the payout. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file the item as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 6.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINE THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA AND INTRODUCE AND 12 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -8- APPROVE A NON-URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINE THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA. Planning and Community Services Director Meredith Elguira gave an overview of the Urgency and Non-Urgency Ordinance via PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the item had gone before the Planning Commission on January 21, 2020. In 2019, the California Legislature and the California Governor signed into law several bills (“New ADU Laws”) that amended Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs. She reported that the New ADU Laws took effect on January 1, 2020, and if the City’s ADU Ordinance does not comply with the New ADU Laws, the City’s Ordinance will become null and void on that date as a matter of law. Failure to comply with Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (as amended) as of January 1, 2020 renders the City’s Ordinance regulating ADUs and JADUs null and void, thereby limiting the City to the application of the few default standards provided in Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 for the approval of ADUs and JADUs. She stated that new ADU laws were presented to the Planning Commission which comply with the State’s requirements and are also exempt from CEQA. She stated that the City had to make findings for the proposed revisions to assure that the new regulations would not cause significant impact to the community. For example, that there would be no damage to the scenic resources and that the site is not located in the vicinity of a hazardous waste site, which the City is not. Another finding, that there is no significant impact to historical resources (not currently present in the City). She reviewed the difference between ADU and JADU. A JADU is not larger than 500 square feet. It is contained entirely within an existing or proposed new single-family residence. It includes a separate sanitation facility, or it can be shared within the existing single-family residence. It also includes an efficiency kitchen, which would consist of appliances, at least 15 square feet of counter space and 30 square feet of cabinet space. An ADU is either an attached or detached residential dwelling unit. It is completely independent and can either have an efficiency unit or a manufactured unit. She proceeded to highlight the changes to the code. She stated that there are two requirements, one is a building permit and the other would require an ADU permit. A building permit is needed when an existing detached or attached unit has been converted. Any discretional approval can be waived if the unit is at least 4 feet away from the side yard or rear yard setback. The unit must be smaller than 800 square feet and lower than 16 feet in height. She informed the Council that an ADU could be located within any part of the parcel, including the front property line. This would be an over the counter approval which would require a building permit and that the City must act within 60 days of a complete application. She added that there were certain stipulations that must be met. For example, the unit cannot be rented for less than 60 days. It cannot be sold separately from the single-family residence. There are also occupancy requirements, which she pointed out per the list on the PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Black left the meeting at 8:37 p.m. 13 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -9- PCSD Elguira pointed out that there were also deed restrictions. She proceeded to go over the development standards and informed the Council that she had received advice from the City Attorney’s Office. Together they tried to develop the most stringent requirements that could be submitted to HCD for approval. The most stringent requirements that were advised to her were to make a one bedroom and/or studio a maximum of 800 square feet. For two bedrooms or more the maximum is 1000 square feet. If either unit are outside the requirements set forth (maximum 800 square feet, no taller than 16 feet), they will have to comply with the front property line set-back of 30 feet, side and rear property line of 4 feet, and maximum lot coverage of 50%. She proceeded to outline further details via the PowerPoint Presentation. PCSD Elguira informed the Council that she confirmed with the Finance Director that the City does not have impact fees, which are usually used to defray some infrastructure cost for a new development. Finance Director Shea informed her that the City does not have enough development and usually in a built-out City you do not get impact fees from single family residential development, but rather from a large development like multi-family residential development. She explained that impact fees help pay for schools, sewer and/or roads. For any non-conforming ADU the City would require the owner go through a discretionary approval which would require a conditional use permit. She stated that she felt the most important thing to point out about the ADU/JADU Ordinance was the building permit requirements for applications regarding converted spaces. If it is an existing accessory structure, the applicant would need a building permit. This unit must meet the following requirements: independent exterior access and fire and safety access. A detached new unit must be 4 feet away from the side and rear set-back; must be 800 square feet or less and maximum 16 feet in height; and a building permit is required. There are separate requirements for multi-family lot zones, but since there are none in the City this was not reviewed however it was added to the ordinance because it was a State requirement. The goal was to put forth regulations in order to receive the States’ approval and have the City’s own regulations in place. She informed the Council that the Housing Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission were informed that this item would be brought back once more information was available or if staff had additional recommendations. PCSD Elguira added that there were discussions on adding more regulations outside of the ADU umbrella, possibly to the City’s Building Code or Fire Code requirements. Councilmember Dieringer asked about the definition of the JADU in the ordinance. A JADU was described as contained entirely within an existing or proposed single family residences however in the proposed ordinance the word “residence” was listed as “structure”. She stated that the word “structure” could be interpreted as any building on a single-family lot, even an uninhabited building. PCSD Meredith Elguira replied that she believed the definition was understood that it must be a secondary structure to the residential unit since all the City’s zoning is a residential zone. She explained there must be a primary residence prior to having an accessory dwelling unit. City Attorney Michael Jenkins commented that he believed single family structure and single- family residence means the same thing. 14 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -10- Mayor Pro Tem Piper suggested approving the item as is. City Attorney Jenkins stated that he did not see any ambiguity with the word or any issues changing the word structure to dwelling. He added that once the ordinance is adopted, staff may come back with some minor changes but that would be a separate process. He stated there should be no changes between the first reading and the second reading. Councilmember Dieringer requested the change of the word “structure” to “residence” be made to clarify that this “structure” is a dwelling unit. She also wanted to address the process and timing highlighted on page 4, regarding ADU permits. It was her understanding that the City must act on an application within 60 days of receipt and that there were only two exceptions to the rule. She inquired if the City was obligated to approve an application if the applicant fails to reply to the City’s inquiry about a concern. She asked if there was a possibility of a hybrid situation where the City would not deny the application but request a modification before approval. City Attorney Jenkins replied that the City was not obligated to approve an incomplete application or if insufficient information was provided. The applicant would have to come back and reapply. In a hybrid situation, the City could approve the application if the corrections are made and submitted. If changes needed to be made, the applicant would be asked to agree to a delay; if the applicant does not agree, the application would be denied. Councilmember Dieringer wanted to confirm that the City would not permit anything over two bedrooms for any ADUs. PCSD Elguira replied that State code allows up to 1200 square feet and can be more than 1 bedroom. The City’s ordinance proposes a maximum of 1000 square feet to deter applicants from exceeding 1 bedroom. However, she reminded the Council that the Planning Department does not conduct post-construction inspections. City Attorney Jenkins confirmed that the City would not allow more than two bedrooms. Councilmember Dieringer asked for the definition of a right-of-way line and clerestory. She also asked if the City could collect impact fees since it was in the language of the proposed ordinance. PCSD Elguira replied that the right-of-way line was referring to an easement. Clerestory refers to a bank of windows. City Attorney Jenkins replied that there was a difference between filing fee and impact fee. He explained that imposing an impact fee requires a study. That study must demonstrate that the ADU is creating an impact on the community and that the community must be compensated. The fee would then be used to mitigate that impact. The City currently does not have impact fees for Single family residences. Furthermore, the City would have a hard time placing an impact fee on ADUs. Mayor Pro Tem Piper predicted that the septic issue would slow the process down. He shared that his neighbors, the Shumaker’s were quoted $120,000 to install a new septic tank. 15 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -11- Councilmember Dieringer stated she did not understand the issue regarding utility fees and how that is detailed in the proposed ordinance. PCSD Elguira explained that if a unit exists and it is being converted, it is assumed that there are utilities in place. For new detached ADU’s the applicant would have to pay for a connection fee. The typical building permit would be required to connect. If this connection would require an upgrade to an electrical panel, then the City could require undergrounding per the City’s code. Councilmember Wilson asked if a resident has an attached garage and they wanted to convert to a JADU, was the resident obligated to have an efficiency kitchen in place. He then asked what would happen if the efficiency kitchen was removed in later years? How would that unit be viewed? PCSD Elguira replied yes, the resident would be obligated to have an efficiency kitchen in place. She then added that policing ADUs and JADUs would be difficult. She explained that the unit would be considered illegal because the owner would have signed a deed declaring the unit as an accessory dwelling unit with efficiency kitchen and that the unit is self-sufficient. Once those elements are removed and the unit no longer is self-sufficient, the unit would no longer be considered a JADU. Councilmember Wilson suggested that when advertising information about ADUs and JADUs in the Blue Newsletter to spell out the acronyms (ADUs and JADUs) for those residents that are not familiar with the language. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper requested a list of requirements be given to all applicants of ADU and JADUs in order to try and curb the growth of potential units. Mayor Mirsch requested to discuss solid fencing and vegetation as screens. PCSD Elguira replied that she is working with the RHCA, and Assistant City Attorney Todd Leishman to address those issues in addition to issues regarding opaque glass. Councilmember Dieringer asked if the City’s code allowed for multi-family dwellings. Her concern was that multiple ADUs could be erected on one parcel. City Attorney Jenkins answered no. Mayor Mirsch opened the item to public comment. Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road, asked about the eligible structures to which ADUs could be attached. He also asked if he converted his 1000 square foot garage to an ADU, would he be obligated to provide additional parking spaces. PCSD Elguira replied that an attached ADU can be attached to an existing barn, single car garage or a single-family house. He would not be required to provide additional garage or parking spaces. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council approve waiving a full reading and adopt the 16 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -12- Urgency Ordinance Number 364U. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council introduce and approve on first reading the Non-Urgency Ordinance Number 364. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 7.OLD BUSINESS A.ANNOUNCE COX “POP-UP” OPEN HOUSE AT HESSE PARK. TWO SESSIONS BETWEEN 3PM AND 8PM TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENT’S SCHEDULES. DATE TO BE DETERMINED (ORAL). PCSD Elguira stated that other Peninsula Cities have service issues with COX. The City of Rolling Hills Estates advised that COX would hold an open house tentatively scheduled for March 4th, 2020. Two sessions of the open house will be held; one at 3pm and the other at 8pm. PCSD Elguira stated that she planned to come back to the Council with a confirmed date at the next City Council meeting. City Manager Jeng offered to announce the event in the City’s Blue Newsletter. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council receive and file the item as presented. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. C. DISCUSS FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 AND 2022-2023 POTENTIAL BUDGET ITEMS TO SUPPORT THE CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council move Item 7C to the next City Council Meeting of February 27, 2020. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: 17 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -13- AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS NONE. 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF Councilmember Dieringer inquired about having someone review the internal control of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper recalled Finance Director Shea provided this service for other cities. He suggested asking Finance Director Shea for a quote to add the service to his scope of work. Mayor Mirsch mentioned that the Council packets have been produced and posted on the City’s website by Thursdays. She asked Councilmember Dieringer if she has found the postings of the agenda by Thursdays helpful. Councilmember Dieringer stated that she appreciated being able to download the agenda but is frustrated that the attachments cannot be found on the same page as the agenda. She would prefer to download one document with everything included. Mayor Mirsch remarked that all Councilmembers could benefit from one downloaded document. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 9:06p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, February 24, 2020 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, _______________________ Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, 18 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-10-20 -14- _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 19 -1- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 7:03p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2.ROLL CALL Councilmembers Present:Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:Black. Others Present:Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director Yohana Coronel, City Clerk Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring 3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME None. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A.MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve the consent items as presented with minutes as amended. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.20 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -2- 5.COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.WAIVE FULL READING AND APPROVE ADOPTION OF A NON- URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 17.28 OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINE THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA. PCS Director Elguira presented the item for a second reading and requested City Council approval. Councilmember Dieringer asked City Attorney Jenkins if the issues cited in a letter received from the Californians for Homeownership could be reviewed later so the Council could proceed with the approval of the ordinance. City Attorney Jenkins answered in the affirmative. He advised the City would be complying notwithstanding the correspondence and the Council could look at the issues presented in the letter at a later time. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper suggested contacting the City of Los Angeles about their Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) rules. He is curious about their handling of the situation. PCS Director Elguira assured the Council she would check with the City of Los Angeles and report back. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council approve the items as presented. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. B.WAIVE FULL READING AND ADOPT 2019 CALIFORNIA STANDARD BUILDING CODE AS ADOPTED AND AMENDED BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA. PCS Director Elguira advised that the proposed ordinance was introduced for first reading at the January 27, 2020 City Council Meeting and was approved for a second reading. She recommended the Council waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance. 21 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -3- Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the items as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 7.OLD BUSINESS A.DISCUSS FISCAL YEARS 2021-2022 AND 2022-2023 POTENTIAL BUDGET ITEMS TO SUPPORT THE CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP. City Manager Jeng reviewed the item from the City Council workshop held on Saturday, January 25th, 2020. She summarized the Council’s common priorities as Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness, Utility Undergrounding, Drainage, and Sewer. She wants to advance these priorities as budgetary items for fiscal year 2021. Councilmember Dieringer asked if the City was exploring the legal liability with regards to drainage, City maintained improvements, and policy changes on individual properties. She recalled concerns voiced by the City Attorney about possible legal liability and expectant costs if the Council moved forward with the idea of the City maintaining improvements to sewers or drainage on private property. City Manager Jeng responded that there were two parts to the drainage topic. The first would be a policy change on individual properties. This could be discussed with Commissioners to place requirements on new development projects for onsite water retention. The second part would be for the City to identify capital improvement projects. She clarified the City would not own facilities, but it helps to identify and find solutions for common run-offs. Councilmember Dieringer recalled Councilmember Black’s comment from the previous meeting about installing catch basins throughout the City. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated this item must start with the Planning Commission in order to change the planning rules. He prefers to use the Measure W money for City Hall projects and eventually work up towards the canyons. He requested that staff provide the Council with the overall cost for the sewer project and outline the steps so the Council could make an informed decision. Councilmember Wilson asked if past budget items would be rolled into next year’s budget. He queried how much money was available after the current projects were completed and what would be a realistic allocation for future items. City Manager Jeng confirmed that past budget items were rolled into the current year’s budget. She advised that 80% of the projects should be completed in the current year. She understood the 22 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -4- concern because for the last three years there has been a surplus of 50k. This was a result of incomplete capital improvement projects from past years. She explained that this year’s revenue and expenses might equalize because the Council has been actively working on projects. City Manager Jeng understands the Council does not want to overspend and if the Council completes all four priorities next year, it is likely there would be more expenses than revenue. She suggested that the Council could direct staff to keep the projects at the expected revenue minus expenses. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Council moved forward with the sewer design, how long would the design plan work for and does it have an expiration date. He asked if the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has an expiration date on design plans. City Manager Jeng answered that the designs have expiration dates, however, the shelf life of a design plan is between three to five years depending on code changes. She added that the commitment letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District was also good for three to five years. If the Council were to take longer than three to five years, the City would have to redesign and check if there were any changes to the sanitation district codes. Councilmember Dieringer asked if the amendments would cost as much as the initial design plan. City Manager Jeng advised there was a cost associated with checking for updates, but the fees are small if the updates were minimal. She explained that the cost is relative to the amount of work that needs to be done to update the drawings. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper suggested establishing if the Council wants to spend a million dollars on the project and if so, then move forward with the design. If the Council decides to not move forward with the sewer project, then the Council could deal with the tennis courts. He would prefer to decide on what projects the Council was willing to spend money on and move forward from there. Councilmember Wilson asked City Manager Jeng what her expectations were from the discussion. City Manager Jeng replied that she was seeking a path for the proposed items in order to put a plan together, however, she understands that the Council prefers to see current numbers before committing. Councilmember Dieringer requested a menu of items with approximate costs to see how they interrelate. Mayor Mirsch opened the item for public comments. Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road, referred to his letter submitted to the Council on February 17th, 2020. The letter suggested ways that the Council could leverage allocated money. He informed the Council that he had a representative from the California Fire Safety Council that was willing to give a presentation to the Council and/or the RHCA during an open meeting. He felt this could be a great source of information and urged the Council to take advantage of the representative’s expertise. 23 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -5- Mayor Mirsch thanked Mr. Visco for his comments. B.UPDATE ON COX OPEN HOUSE AT HESE PARK. FEBRUARY 27, 2020, TWO SESSIONS FROM 3PM TO 5PM AND 6PM TO 8PM. (ORAL). City Manager Jeng informed the Council that COX is hosting a Pop House to hear customer service issues from the Peninsula on February 27, 2020 from 3pm-5pm and 6pm-8pm. This item was advertised in the City’s Blue Newsletter and required no action from the Council. 8.NEW BUSINESS A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR CITY HALL CAMPUS SITE AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES. City Manager Jeng gave an overview of the landscaping services for City Hall. In 2015 Pacific Coast Landscape Services (PCL) was selected in response to the City’s request for proposal. Their contract included landscape maintenance services for the City Hall campus and the tennis courts for three years from on January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. In November 2019 PCL’s contract was terminated for failure to meet the agreement terms, conditions, and requirements. City staff then contracted with Bennett Landscape Services on an interim basis. She informed the Council that staff was ready to seek competitive pricing and release a request for proposal (RFP). Councilmember Dieringer commented staff added items to the contract to ensure there was more accountability from the vendor. She asked if staff listed everything needed. City Manager Jeng replied in the affirmative and added that Councilmember Wilson made an excellent suggestion to add cleaning the rain gutters. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper requested that the trash enclosure also be maintained. City Manager Jeng stated that she had renamed the title to read “Site and Landscape Maintenance,” versus “Landscaping Maintenance.” Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the RFP for the site and landscaping maintenance for the City Hall Campus and direct staff to advertise this proposal. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote. AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson. NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS 24 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -6- Councilmember Dieringer gave a report about the Regional Law Committee meeting that was held on February 13th,2020. She stated that the School Resource Officers (SRO) were present and gave an overview of their workday. According to the SROs, they walk around all day at Palos Verdes High School. The SROs mentioned they would be attending the Regional Law Meeting when the time came to renew their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). She warned she needed more information about their daily routine before renewing their MOU. Councilmember Wilson expressed concerns about one SRO stating he does traffic control in the morning at the high school. He feels that volunteers should oversee traffic control and because that is not the best use of the SROs time. He added that it did not seem the SROs had a schedule and/or supervision during the day. Mayor Mirsch requested that the Regional Law Committee members follow up with the concerns expressed before the Council signs off on the renewal of the SROs MOU. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked when the Council would vote to renew their MOU. City Manager Jeng responded that the MOU was just signed and that copies were distributed about two weeks ago. The City is supposed to be billed on a quarterly basis, but issues arose with the School District when reviewing the cost for security. She was informed that the School District is sorting out the issues before invoicing the cities for last year’s bill. There was talk about creating another MOU or extending the existing MOU to future years. The Superintendent’s Office wants to make that decision within a month and then submit it to the Regional Law Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if the other cities were present at the Regional Law Meeting and if they had the same concerns the Rolling Hills Committee members had expressed. Councilmember Dieringer replied that she felt other members knew something needed to be done but were comfortable with knowing something was in place. Councilmember Black wondered if the SROs visited other schools during the day. Councilmember Wilson stated that the SROs mentioned that they had been to the middle schools, but he could not determine if it happened more than once. It is his belief that the SROs had not visited any elementary schools. Councilmember Dieringer stated that it seemed to her that the SROs only monitor the two high schools (Palos Verdes High and Peninsula High). She would find it helpful if they list examples of things their presence has averted. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked for a status on coyote activity and if the City was still allocating money for the program. City Manager Jeng replied Fernando Berrera, the Wildlife Specialist and State Licensed Trapper, just reported catching a female coyote in Rolling Hills and that staff keeps a tally of the captured coyotes. City staff also requests consent forms when residents call City Hall about coyote 25 Minutes City Council Meeting 02-24-20 -7- sightings. She reminded the Council Wildlife Specialist Berrera has been able to service the City and Peninsula because the Office of Janice Hahn specifically allocated money to the Peninsula. She advised the allocation needs to continue beyond June 30, 2020 in order to keep the service. Mayor Mirsch asked if this was an item, she should bring up at a future Contract Cities and County Board of Supervisors meetings. City Manager Jeng replied yes. Councilmember Wilson asked what the budget cycle was for the County. City Manager Jeng replied the County is on the same fiscal calendar as the City and they make budget decisions around the month of April. 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WILL BE ADJOURNED IN MEMORY OF FLORENCE HORN, A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF ROLLING HILLS. SHE PASSED AWAY ON FEBRUARY 20, 2020. Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, January 27, 2020 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 26 -1- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 09, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 7:02p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers Present:Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:Black. Others Present:Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director. Yohana Coronel, City Clerk. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road. Abas Goodarzi, 2 Wrangler Road. Marcia Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive. Susan Sleep, 5W Ringbit Road West. David McKinnie, 3 El Concho. Brian Wells, Los Angeles County Fire Department. 3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road, provided an update on a February 17th Fire Council Letter he submitted to the City Council. He reported that some of the RHCA Board members had expressed interest in attending a City Council meeting if a representative from the California Fire Safety Council was scheduled to speak. He stated that the Fire Safety Council representative was available after March. He requested that the Council agendize scheduling the California Fire Safety Council presentation for the first meeting in April. Mayor Mirsch asked Mr. Visco if the Association was willing to pick up the item. Mr. Visco replied that it was his understanding that the Association would attend the City Council Meeting when the representative was scheduled to speak. He also suggested that when the Fire Safety representative was invited to speak that the Council should invite the public to attend. Abas Goodarzi, 2 Wrangler Road, commented that he had recently became aware of damage to his property due to rainwater. He stated the City was informed of his problem in 2006 and nothing 27 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -2- was done. He recently learned that the Association was looking into the matter but postponed acting because they were seeking a legal opinion. He explained that water continues to drain on his property and has created a water wash-out about 20-25 feet down and caused the hill to come down. He stated he would continue to follow up with the Association and hopes to work towards a friendly resolution. Mr. Goodarzi noticed that on the previous City Council agendas, the Council had actions items for undergrounding and drainage. He would appreciate it if the Council makes drainage a budget priority because drainage is a more serious issue than undergrounding 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A.MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2020, REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2020, AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED C. CONSIDER AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 1250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZED THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED Councilmember Dieringer asked to table consent item 4A until the next City Council Meeting. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council approve consent items 4B and 4C as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 5.COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6.PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7.OLD BUSINESS 28 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -3- NONE. 8.NEW BUSINESS A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PETITION FOR THE FORMATION OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT, TOGETHER WITH APPURTENANCES, APPURTENANT WORK AND ACQUISITION, WHERE NECESSARY, IN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT KNOWN AND DESIGNED AS UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2020-1 (EASTFIELD DRIVE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS). City Manager Elaine Jeng reported that this item was listed as New Business but in fact the matter was presented to Council several times in the past. The item was new in the sense that an undergrounding project, Eastfield Drive Utility Improvements Project, requested approval to form an assessment district. She informed the Council that the project’s proponent, Mrs. Marcia Shoettle, was present in the audience. She informed the Council that the project’s design was completed, and the Association has given a portion of the necessary easements that were collected from property owners. Edison has released the design plans for a construction bid. Despite the project’s progression, it was out of order and the petition should have come to the Council in the beginning of the project, once the proponent had formed the group. The group should have requested Council’s approval to form an assessment district. The process to form an assessment district involves the project’s proponent soliciting approvals from the property owners in the proposed district. She pointed out that 60% participation is mandated to form an assessment district according to the City’s guidelines. This translates to a requirement of 60% acreage within the overall acreage of the project. She proceeds to highlight the acreage via a PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Mirsch inquired about the 30 days to pay the assessment and asked if there was a level and/or amount where a bond would be viewed as profitable. City Manager Jeng replied that according to the City’s Bond Counsel and Assessment Engineer the bond is another form of financing. The group could opt to do a bond, which would be more marketable at a certain price range. She advised that the Bond Counsel had seen financing through a bank as well. City Manager Jeng reiterated that appropriate terminology is financing because the amount of the bond is unknown for the first 30 days. That time is used by the group to determine how they prefer to pay down their share of the cost. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were other districts looking to form an assessment district. City Manager Jeng advised there was one other project by Mr. David McKinnie and Clint Patterson. It was her understanding that they wanted to form an assessment district and have been hosting neighborhood meetings, however it was in the beginning stages. Mayor Mirsch opened the item for public comment. Mr. Goodarzi asked how much of this expense the City was going to absorb. 29 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -4- City Manager Jeng answered the City had contributed about 1/3 of the expenses thus far totaling $35,882.00 as indicated on page 42 of the staff report. On March 19, 2019, the Council decided to contribute 1/3 of the cost solely to assessment districts design and nothing more beyond that. Mr. Goodarzi inquired why City is involved in undergrounding. He expressed concern over the City’s interest and finances. He stated that he currently has drainage problems and does not feel that undergrounding should be a priority. He does not see this as a necessity for the City compared to drainage. He stated he could call Edison for whatever he needed, and Edison would charge it to his bill. He attended two meetings and it was his understanding that the bill for this project is continuous. Mayor Mirsch replied that she appreciated Mr. Goodarzi concern for the City’s Finances. She assured him that the Council was highly concerned as well. She explained the policy has been in place for a year and that the current Council, along with previous Councils, felt that undergrounding was a benefit to the City and the community. The City may budget $100,000.00 each year, but that does not mean the City will spend the full allocation. She referenced the staff report and highlighted that the Council is capped at $35,000.00 for the project. If the cost increases, the assessment district must make provisions. She clarified that the Council offers seed money as an incentive to encourage residents to form districts for undergrounding projects. This is something the Council has been doing for some time and this was the first group to progress this far. She further stated that this does not indicate undergrounding is more important than drainage. Mr. Goodarzi asked how the City would get its money back and if the properties in the group would be reassessed. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper replied that the City was not trying to recover any money. The Council is financially conservative and was very careful about spending the resident’s money. He stated the Eastfield Drive Utility Improvements Project group spent a lot of money and energy to move the project forward. The Association and the City decided to pay a third each with the residents paying the remaining third for the first part of it to see if they can get the project off the ground. He stated that the completion of this project would make the City look better and increase property values. He understood Mr. Goodarzi has a drainage issue and assured him that it was something the Council has discussed. He also pointed out that Mr. Goodarzi was talking about issues that involve private property and roads. The drainage has come up in previous Council meetings and has been flagged as a priority by the Council. He assured Mr. Goodarzi that the Council was listening to his concerns, but he also wanted to point out that undergrounding and drainage were two separate issues. Mr. Goodarzi stated that he understood what Mayor Pro Tem Pieper said but he still felt that undergrounding only adds value to properties once they are reassessed. Mayor Mirsch commented that she felt that the removal of poles and undergrounding does add value to the community. The streets that have undergrounding and do not have poles look better in her opinion. If money were not an issue the entire City would have undergrounding. She further stated that previous Councilmembers had expressed the same sentiment. 30 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -5- Marcia Shoettle, 24 Eastfield Drive, commented that having the City support her project assisted her in recruiting participation. Susan Sleep, 5W Ringbit Road West, commented that she does not live anywhere near Eastfield, but the big heavy overhead lines devalue the entire the City. She further stated that she would gladly contribute to the project because it helps the entire City. Mr. Goodarzi added that if the concern was safety and beauty then why not add lights to the existing poles for safer roads. Having poles in the community add value because Edison and the utility companies must provide maintenance for the trees around the poles. He stated that undergrounding benefits the utility companies and furthermore the City should leverage them to provide landscaping and maintenance services. Mayor Mirsch thanked Mr. Goodarzi for his comments. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council approve the assessment district as presented. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. B.CONSIDER AND DISCUSS A POLICY FOR CITY CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD WIRES AND POLES THAT ARE NOT A PART OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS. City Manager Jeng stated that this item was to discuss setting policy for undergrounding single poles. She clarified that the previous item discussed assessment district projects. On March 2019, the Council set a policy for contribution amounts, set a cap for assessment district projects and created a MOU with the Association to share costs. She explained that provided clarity to the residents that were considering forming an assessment district. Single poles, however, have been handled on a case-by-case basis. She pointed out that the Council has not been consistent but understood why. She explained every pole was different (location, single versus multiple lines) and that there were special considerations taken in some cases. She hoped that the Council could reach some common ground regarding single pole requests. This would help provide better direction, help staff process the single pole request and address some past concerns. City Manager Jeng proceed to review past single pole projects. The most recent project that received City contribution was a utility pole on 38 Saddleback. The City Council approved a contribution of approximately 10% of the overall project cost, which matched RHCA's contribution amount of $3,295. The staff report relating to 38 Saddleback was attached to the Council’s report for reference. She highlighted other utility undergrounding projects that received City contribution. In reviewing various projects, the City Council based contribution amounts on overall cost, RHCA's contribution amount, or the percentage of SCE engineering cost. 31 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -6- City Manager Jeng also sought clarity on the process of payouts. One project stated that the payout would be done upon 75% completion and as she pointed out any percent of a project is difficult to measure if it is not 100%. Another issue the staff consulted with the legal department was regarding the City’s contribution to a single party. It was determined that any City contribution must have a public benefit, which means it would benefit more than one resident. A question was posed if a blanket determination could be made that undergrounding utility poles helps with wildfire mitigation and that is a community wide benefit. This is another aspect for the Council to determine. She explained that the Council is welcomed to define parameters or continue on a case- by-case basis. Mayor Mirsch thanked City Manager Jeng for her overview. She predicts that the Council will be seeing more single pole requests and requested that the Council consider having a discussion on the item. Mayor Mirsch opened the item for public comment. David McKinnie, 3 El Concho, shared that he has had discussions with people about single poles. He stated that one of the major issues with single poles was figuring out the cost. If someone tries to draw some parallel to the utility districts, then you would need to identify the engineering cost. He was unsure how Edison breaks this cost down. He referenced the staff report for 38 Saddleback and stated it was the best break down he has seen. He presumes the Association and the City reviewed the break down before they decided how much they wanted to contribute. He did not recall seeing the bid, but he saw that it shows Edison’s cost of $22,000. He was not sure if that amount was for what they considered engineering design cost or cost before the project started. He advised the Council that if they decided to explore that route for non-utility districts, they would first have to define what the engineering cost would be. He suggested collaborating with Edison to get a good estimation of the engineering cost. Once that amount is defined, then the City could decide how much to contribute. Mrs. Sleeps stated that she brought photos of all the poles on Ringbit Road West. She wanted to work on the 3 poles located on the street above her. Instead of trying to do everything at once, she and her neighbor, Mr. Shumaker, decided it was best to divide and conquer. She stated that Mr. Shumaker was assigned pole A and B, and she was assigned pole C. She then informed the Council that the pole assigned to her, pole C, and the people above her does not affect her view, but does affect her neighbors, Mr. Joe Hummel, Mr. Charlie Shumaker. She also added that the pole was in her driveway. So rather than trying to herd cats, it was decided that each neighbor would take a pole. She stated that her pole is at the end of the line and that she had already paid for her invoice for engineering cost, totaling $6,600.00. She further stated that the Association had already written her a check for a total of $2,250.00 which comes to a 1/3 of the cost. She informed the Council that she had already paid for the undergrounding and construction cost. She stated that the cost to tear up the street for a single pole came to $22,500.00 and that did not include the engineering cost. Mr. Goodarzi stated that he would reach out to Edison executives to see if there would be a way for the City receive credit for the preventative maintenance measures they have taken by doing undergrounding. 32 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -7- Mayor Mirsch closed the item from public comments. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper admitted the Council had been inconsistent with contributions towards undergrounding that is not part of an assessment district, but the Council was getting better as more projects came up. His issue was how to confirm the removal of one pole serving more than one resident. He commented that the removal of a pole could help with fire mitigation. He stated the Council needed to be careful in declaring cost projections. He shared there was a huge difference between a single pole and a feeder line pole, which powers an entire area. He compared the removal of single poles on past projects to the Eastfield project and estimated the City spent about $2,500.00 per house. He believes the Council has spent too much money on the removal of single poles and would be better off declaring an amount to contribute regardless of engineering cost. If the Council set a policy on the matter, it should decide how much money to contribute per pole, but admitted each pole is different making that amount difficult to establish. Mayor Mirsch stated that she felt it was better for everyone to know what the Council’s policy would be and what to expect from it. Councilmember Wilson commented that single poles could have a lot more variables and unknowns than an assessment district. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that the Eastfield project started with 19 poles and as the project progressed, the number of poles changed. If they are trying to make it easier for staff to process, they can simply place a bounty on a pole no matter its location. If the amount is out of line for whatever reason, the applicant could come before the Council and be heard individually. Councilmember Dieringer stated that the Council should investigate how much funding the City has allocated for these projects. She was not sure how many poles the City has but that the City does not have money to fund the removal of all the poles. She was also concerned about the legal considerations. She recalled the Council considering these types of projects before and if the project benefited more than one person, which it did. She further stated that she did not think that the Council could come up with a magic number to contribute. The Council made different decisions on each pole because each pole and circumstance were different. She thinks Council should develop considerations and encourage people to apply before the project begins. This allows the Council to evaluate the project, find out how many people it would serve, and determine if there is a community need. She acknowledged removing numerous poles would be some sort of fire mitigation but questioned if that justifies the Council undergrounding every single pole. She suggested the Council put together a workable policy because single poles are different than an assessment district, which clearly has a community benefit. Mayor Mirsch stated that she concurs with everyone’s point of view. She agrees assessment districts defines who benefits and the costs. She does not feel the Council or staff are able to assess how much value there is to a pole. It has been established that all poles are not alike including fire safety considerations. She is not inclined to determine how much a pole is worth and was not in support of assigning an amount per pole. She stated that if the Council considered reimbursing a portion of cost, it would have to be based on that project. The Council has made fire mitigation a 33 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -8- high priority. If undergrounding utilities is considered a benefit to fire mitigation, then that could mean that undergrounding does benefit the community. She requested counsel’s position. City Attorney Michael Jenkins stated that he was not sure. He informed the Council had two options. They could review each project on a case-by-case basis. The advantage is that the Council could look at individual facts to determine if it would produce a benefit (i.e. fire or esthetic). The disadvantage is that it is more time consuming and does not provide the kind of incentive the Council wants to give applicants. The question becomes how the Council would create a generic policy. Can the Council arrive at a broad conclusion that the elimination of every single pole would produce a community benefit that would be equal? He stated there would be an equality issue in determining which pole removal would be more beneficial to the community. For example, a pole in an obscure area versus a pole that is highly visible. The Council could create a policy and create some criteria. Some poles may meet all the criteria some may only meet half the criteria. He suggested that if a pole only meets half the criteria then that pole would then only receive half of the contribution. This is one way to bring consistency rather than the Council deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper suggested bringing the item up at the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission in April. He suggested the Council to come up with something repeatable and hoped it would address 90% of the projects. He proposed if the applicant does not like the answer, they could come before the Council and it could be treated as an individual case. He would like policy that is clear for residents and staff. He does not think staff should have to decide if a pole is a fire issue or view obstruction. The next issue for the Council to discuss was a palpable amount of money for the poles with transformers versus the 4KW giant poles. Mayor Mirsch stated the giant poles would more likely form a district because those poles service many homes. Councilmember Dieringer stated more discussion is needed in order to develop ideas. Mayor Mirsch asked if the Council was inclined to form an Ad Hoc Committee. She was interested if anyone cared to join her. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper moved that the City Council form an Ad Hoc Subcommittee with Mayor Pro Tem Pieper and Mayor Mirsch as members. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. C.CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR CITY CONTRIBUTION TO UNDERGROUND A SINGLE UTILITY POLE AT 5 RINGBIT ROAD WEST. 34 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -9- Planning and Community Services Director Meredith Elguira gave a PowerPoint presentation of the undergrounding of a single pole at 5 Ringbit Road West. The application was submitted by Susan Sleep on February 4th, 2020 requesting reimbursement. She explained the infrastructure of the project has been completed per the slide submitted by Ms. Sleep. Director Elguira spoke with Southern California Edison (SCE) and they informed her that permits for this project were issued on March 3rd, 2020. The project is expected to be completed within 45 days of the issued permit. Ms. Sleep’s pole is part of a larger project but no letters of support were received. Mr. Shumaker is also proposing removing 2 poles. Director Elguira highlighted the SCE project planner explained that this project is an outlier because the pole was smaller and an end pole, which minimized the cost. The design cost was nominal and not included in the invoice with the engineering cost, which includes pulling of the cable, labor, and project materials. Ms. Sleep requested reimbursement of an unknown amount because her project benefits the community. Councilmember Dieringer asked staff to confirm that letters of support were requested from the applicant and received none. Director Elguira stated that was correct and added that the applicant referred staff to the Shumaker’s project to locate letters of support. She further stated that the bigger project had the support of other residents including Mr. Shumaker and the adjacent neighbor. When she visited the site with Mr. Shumaker, SCE, and a potential contractor, two residents were present to support the bigger project. Mayor Mirsch opened the item for public comment. Ms. Sleep stated that she was not sure why the Council was trying to reinvent the wheel. The Association already offered a 1/3 of the engineering cost. She has an email from the City dated August 18th stating that City has been contributing 1/3 to engineering cost and it was her understanding that this was encouraged by the City. She does not understand why this is so difficult and the hoops she has gone through was not encouraging. She informed the Council COX and Frontier already ran lines at no cost. She felt that the questions being brought up had not been researched. If a 1/3 of the engineering cost was paid by the Association and the correspondence, she has from Mayor Mirsch states the City’s been covering a 1/3 why was the Council making it complicated. She proclaimed the Council either wants to encourage residents or they do not, and people will give up if it is complicated. She stated her group wanted all three poles done, but it proved to be too difficult and doing one pole at a time seemed easier. She suggested the Council continue to pay 1/3 of the engineering cost and if the engineering cost is expensive, the neighbors could contribute. She referenced the earlier discussion about the Council creating a policy and stated the value is determined by the work involved to remove the pole not the value someone attributes to the view or fire hazard. She believes the Council should consider the full cost and not cap a pole at $2,500.00. She felt the Council was complicating the issue and making the process difficult. She already paid the invoice and would continue with the project either way. She added that removing pole A and B would be nice and it would be nicer if her neighbors received support since they are investing a large amount of money. Ms. Sleep advised she is willing to contribute her requested reimbursement to the Eastfield project because that project would benefit the whole City. 35 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -10- Mayor Mirsch reiterated the Council encourages these projects and that was the purpose for the discussion. The Council’s policy is to pay for a 1/3 of the engineering cost for assessment districts. When she replied to Ms. Sleep’s email in August and she indicated “many neighbors” the Mayor thought she was talking about an assessment district. Ms. Sleep spoke with Edison and it was too difficult to form a district and determined that if each neighbor took a pole, then the whole street would be done. It was not practical to do an assessment with a bond, she stated that Joe Hummel, the Shumaker’s, and the Kirkpatrick’s all agreed they wanted the poles done and signed the email. The group confirmed that they were all willing to contribute but that the assessment district was too cumbersome. They projected if each person took a pole, the cost would end up being about same. Mayor Mirsch stated she understood, and the Council was trying to work it out. The Council is considering her project, like all the others, and they were looking at all aspects. She advised that her request would now be under the preview of the Ad Hoc Committee and that the Council had enough information to consider her case. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper explained that these are public funds and the City must follow certain protocols. Until recently, the City donated to larger groups because of the benefit to the entire City. He explained that Ms. Sleep’s project involved a single pole at the end of a street and that the Council had to have a conversation to decide if they can prove it is a community benefit. He agreed it is a drawn-out process but there are multiple steps that need to happen. He stated the City strives to make all processes easy for the residents. He thanked her for undergrounding the pole and reminded her that the Council must go through the obligated steps and the City’s counsel attends meetings to monitor the legalities. Ms. Sleep insisted this was not a new issue and the Council had seen this issue before. She suggested the Council review the Hackamore case because it was a single pole project as well. Mr. McKinnie stated that there were two key issues before the Council. The first one was the use of public funds. The second issue was if the Council provided funds, what items should be considered and how much to cover. He indicated he was not clear what the $6,700.00 bill represented. Was it just engineering, which he understands to be the front-end cost before any construction or whether it includes some of Edison’s construction. He stated that the invoice was hard to read because it was blurry and listed labor, materials, and other items. It appeared the bill might be for the whole project. He did not believe the Council had all the necessary information. City Attorney Jenkins interjected to say this was not a good use of the time. A member of the public was constantly talking out of turn. He then noted a speaker was testifying while reading a document for the first time. He discouraged the Council’s evaluation on this item if they have not seen all the documentation. He suggested that staff provide comments on whether the Council is ready to go forward with the issue. City Manager Jeng stated that staff had reviewed all the documents submitted by Ms. Sleep, which was only her correspondence with Edison. She provided an Edison invoice for about $6,000.00, 36 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -11- which she paid. She proceeded to review the invoice that Mr. McKinnie questioned. She stated that there was a line item for design that read zero cost. There was labor, materials, and other items listed that related to Edison’s fieldwork. She pointed out that cost was not for design but rather Edison’s labor. She also highlighted Ms. Sleep had another line item listing a separate contractor, for trenching. It was the staff’s understanding that the pole had not been removed and confirmed that with Edison. She reminded the Council that past practice has been to issue payment upon completion of work. There was only one project when funds were released before completion. That payment was issued upon 75% completion of the work but could not recall the name of that project. She concluded the Council should not contribute at this point. She recommends the Council wait until the applicant has demonstrated the work is completed. The contribution would be at the Council’s discretion. Councilmember Dieringer stated everything must be considered as a whole and she does not believe the Council has all the information or knowledge on what criteria the Council should apply. Past projects are being referenced as one-pole policies and that was not the case because the Council did not treat it that way. Since more information was needed, she would not vote on the item based on the information provided. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that his problem was the information presented does not match what is being said. He recognizes that the Council needs to figure out a policy. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council table the item until the Council meets with the Ad Hoc Committee to develop a proposal for policy going forward and receives further information from staff regarding the completion of this project and the cost involved. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. The City Council recessed at 8:25pm. The City Council reconvened the regular meeting at 8:31 p.m. D.CONSIDER AND DISCUSS RESTRICTING THE PLANTING OF SIX HIGH HAZARD PLANTS PER LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT READY! SET! GO! PROGRAM. City Manager Jeng stated that staff has been working on the Wildfire Mitigation Plan with First Responders (Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), Rolling Hills Community Association, and members of the Block Captain Program. The focus of the group is to release a draft copy of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The CWPP is meant to be an action plan that all the entities previously described can utilize to mitigate wildfire. Rolling Hills along with other Peninsula cities are in a very high fire zone. One topic of discussion is high-hazard plants located in the Ready! Set! Go! Brochure issued 37 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -12- by the Fire Department. Brain Wells from the Fire Department was present to answer questions. She referred the Council to page 88 where the brochure list six high hazard plants: Acacia, Eucalyptus, Juniper, Palms, Pine and Pampas Grass. As the City continues to develop an action plan for the CWPP, staff wanted to engage the Council in a discussion regarding high-hazard plants and implementing restrictive measures. Some of the plants, as Mr. Visco pointed out, have oils that mimic ceresin. She stressed the discussion was not about the existing plants in the community, but restricting these plants going forward. Mayor Mirsch stated the Association currently has a Landscape Committee that is also addressing this type of issue. She again reminded everyone that this discussion had nothing to do with the existing plants in the community. The proposal before the Council was to consider a position going forward to restrict these types of plants. Brian Wells, Los Angeles County Fire Department, introduced himself and stated he had 10 years’ experience working in Rolling Hills as he was previously assigned to Station 106. Councilmember Dieringer asked Mr. Wells if he knew the background why these six plants were placed as high hazard in the brochure. Firefighter Wells replied that most of the information comes from the State and it is their recommendation. He stated these plants have an explosive nature because of the oils in them and are susceptible to fire. Councilmember Dieringer asked if the State’s information came from existing literature. Mr. Wells stated he did not know that off hand. Councilmember Dieringer stated that when the Fire Department came to inspect her property, she inquired about a palm tree. She clarified she did not plant the palm tree but asked the Fire Department if the palm tree presented a problem. They informed her that the plant was not a problem and that it was fine where it was. She then stated that she wondered if the Ready!Set!Go! Brochure is well known policy against palm trees and why there would be inconsistent information. Firefighter Wells replied that the presence of palm trees is not necessarily bad but rather the dead palm fronds underneath that presents a problem. He stated that he was not aware of the condition of the palm tree she was referring to but perhaps the Fire Department was able to determine the palm tree was healthy and did not present a problem during their inspection. Councilmember Dieringer asked if parts of the tree are dead/dying or if they are poorly maintained would that be considered a fire issue. Firefighter Wells replied in the affirmative. He highlighted page 4 of the brochure that states “special attention should be given to the use and maintenance of ornamental plants known or thought to be high-hazard plants when used in close proximity of structures”. These examples include Acacia, Cedar, Cypress, Eucalyptus, Italian Cypress, Juniper, Palms (remove all dead 38 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -13- fronds). He pointed out that problems come in to play when those plants are placed too close to structures and unmaintained. That could cause a fire problem. Councilmember Dieringer rebutted that it had more to do with where the plant is in relationship to the residence. Firefighter Wells advised that was correct. He stated because Rolling Hills is on a hill and is in a high fire hazard zone, the Fire Department inspects up to 200 hundred feet away from homes. He explained it is a considerable distance that most people do not consider. Councilmember Dieringer stated it was her opinion that the brochure may be inaccurately identifying six plants as high-hazard when they are simply thought to be high-hazard. She asked if there was data available to support the fact that the plants are high hazard. Firefighter Wells stated he would have to defer her inquiry to their Forestry Division and that he would also follow up with Chief Hale about whether there is data available to support the statements made in the brochure. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if a healthy Eucalyptus tree would catch fire. He also inquired if restricting the identified plants would be beneficial or overkill for the City. Firefighter Wells responded it depends on what causes the fire to transmit from place to place. He also stated that it would be beneficial for the City in his opinion. Councilmember Wilson asked how one makes the distinction between Acacia tree and an Acacia shrub. Firefighter Wells stated he would have to consult the Forestry Division and report back. Councilmember Dieringer asked about the note on page 4, which suggests that homeowners to pay attention to the use and maintenance of these types of plants when used in proximity of a structure. The brochure does not say these plants should never be planted. Firefighter Wells stated Councilmember Dieringer was correct and that it had to do with maintenance and the upkeep of those plants. Mayor Mirsch opened the item for public comment. Alfred Visco, 15 Cinchring Road, jokingly thanked Councilmember Dieringer for the cross examination of Firefighter Wells and advised he was available for cross examination as well. He advised page 4 of the brochure also includes Cedar, Cypress, and Italian Cypress. He stated that it was obvious that the brochure was inconsistent and that it was written as a general guide and not for Rolling Hills. The City already had experts from the Land Conservancy discuss Acacia and its dangers. He recalled the City funded the removal of Acacia along the Rolling Hills border. He reported that Eucalyptus and Pine trees produce essential oils. Pine tree essential oils are terrenes, which is essentially turpentine. Eucalyptus produce essential oils consistent with Pine trees. The 39 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -14- problem with Eucalyptus trees is that it does not need a very high temperature before it starts off- gassing its oils. It creates a fog over itself of these highly flammable oils and it is how crown fires occur in these trees. He stated that of course trees should be properly maintained but the problem is a lot of these trees are not close to the roads, they are not close to houses and therefore are not being properly maintained. Palm trees have fatty oils with thyglicery, which are not nearly as flammable as the essential oils but are still flammable. He stated he knows this because he was in the natural fats, oils, and processing business before he became an attorney. Palm trees are a problem as well because their leaves are horizontal and are more prone to catching the falling embers than a properly maintained Eucalyptus or Pine tree. He stated that he had not done any research on Juniper or Pampas Grass and therefore would take the Fire Departments recommendations that both plants are high-hazard and should not be planted. He stated that it was his opinion that it had nothing to do with structures but rather with fire fuel. He stated that the Council has taken a first good step in banning the six named plants. Mayor Mirsch thanks Mr. Visco for his comments. Councilmember Dieringer commented that the City has a lot of conditions in place for fire safety but has not implemented all its conditions. She stressed that she has a problem with rules and regulations that criminalize things when the community simply needs to practice diligence. She further stated that even if the Council decides an ordinance was necessary, there is already an ordinance in place regarding dried/dead plants and vegetation. She suggested placing the restriction of the plants in the CWPP but only after more research is done with solid science to support it. Councilmember Wilson asked Director Elguira if she has seen landscape plans with any of the listed plants. Planning Director Elguira stated she has seen some projects with palm trees Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that the City already has requirements in place for new projects. He believes the City would be in better shape if a couple of plants were banned and it would minimize concerns. If there was a reference list when homeowners landscaped, they would be less likely to use those plants. Mayor Mirsch explained the reason why this item came before the Council was because the public asked for information regarding the types of vegetation that could be planted. There was work being done by the Association and they also hired a Fire Consultant who had mentioned that these plants are not suggested. She asked if the Council would like to get ahead of the curb on this issue and if there was a motion to consider moving forward. Which she clarified meant to discuss the item, give staff direction that Council would like to have an ordinance, and going through the public hearings process. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that he would prefer the item as a guideline. Mayor Mirsch stated that the reason for having this ordinance beforehand was to hopefully set an example. She reminded everyone that the Council was committed to fire safety. She stated that she 40 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -15- would like to direct staff, if the Council agreed, that going forward these plants are not permitted in landscaping plans. She asked if the guidelines could legally be part of the planning approval process without having an ordinance. City Attorney Jenkins stated the Council could establish guidelines, but they would not be legally enforceable. Councilmember Dieringer stated that the guidelines should be put in context. City Manager Jeng stated that staff could establish guidelines to discourage people from planting the listed plants. If people proceed to plant them then the City would convey to them to please properly maintain those plants. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper wants the City to be firm about what the expectation is. He suggested repeating that the listed plants are undesirable. 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A.REPORT BY SOUTHBAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT (SBCCOG) LIAISON ON CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP DUES (ORAL REPORT). City Manager Jeng reported that the South Bay Cities Council of Government (SBCCOG) was considering changing the formula that calculates the membership’s dues. She stated that she and Councilmember Dieringer met with other Peninsula City Managers and one South Bay CCOG representative to discuss the potential changes. She wanted to report on how the discussion had gone and deferred to Councilmember Dieringer. Councilmember Dieringer stated one of the SBCCOG suggestions was to pay a base of $10,000.00 and she communicated this was not the City’s preferred option. She expressed that was not a win for the City of Rolling Hills as it may be for other cities. She further stated that she was working on recommendations on how membership dues should be structured. She noted that part of the recommendation was informing her Council of what was going. She explained that it was an ongoing process and that she had met with other Peninsula Cities to try and see if there was a collective view. She stated that she understood that the other Cities are not in the same position as Rolling Hills because they receive funding from measures that do traffic control, whereas Rolling Hills does not because the City has private roads. She stated that the City had a few things that they would need the SBCCOG for compared to the other cities. Mayor Mirsch asked why the City was still a part of the SBCCOG if that was the case. Councilmember Dieringer answered that the SBCCOG helped with the Climate action plan and the City receives regional information. They also offered to help with the energy efficiency plan. The SBCCOG looks for ways to be helpful for their Cities and noted that other CCOG’s had hired people to help their cities with their Affordable Housing Plan. She also stated that the SBCCOG 41 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -16- was controlling the Measure M (transit) monies so it was clear to see how this would be a big deal for other cities. Meanwhile Rolling Hills has no money to gain so she felt at liberty to speak out about the membership dues change. She also informed the SBCCOG that if they insisted on the base of $10,000.00 the City would walk and assumed the Council would agree. Councilmember Wilson asked how much the City currently pays in membership dues. Councilmember Dieringer advised the City currently pays $6,500.00. Mayor Pro Tem Piper stated he supports the City not being a member of the SBCCOG. Mayor Mirsch thanked Councilmember Dieringer for her efforts. B.REPORT BY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ON THE UPDATE TO THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK AND PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL (ORAL REPORT). City Manager Jeng gave an overview of the updates the Personnel Committee made to the Employee handbook. They reached out to the City Attorney’s office to check for any legislative updates. They approached Council with the salary survey and medical health benefit updates. She foresees another month of work may be needed but acknowledges committee assignments may change. The updates are not complete and although she hoped for completion by January 1 st, the next best milestone would be July 1st. This would provide the new fiscal year as an effective date. She posed the question if the current members (Mayor Mirsch and Councilmember Dieringer) may stay on the committee in order to complete the assignment. Mayor Mirsch confessed that the project was a bigger than she imagined. There were a lot of changes in laws, work environments, and it required more work. She stated that the Personnel Committee has been very comprehensive and apologized for taking longer than expected. She stated that if changes are made to the composition of the Personnel Committee it would derail the assignment. It was her hope that the New Mayor would allow the current members to stay on the committee until the completion of the Employee Handbook. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper agreed and thought it was necessary to retain the committee members. C.REPORT BY FIRE FUEL REDUCTION AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN (ORAL REPORT). City Manager Jeng reported on the City’s wildfire mitigation work. The members of Fire Fuel Reduction Ad Hoc Subcommittee, including Mayor Mirsch and Councilmember Wilson, have had good correspondence and meetings with the Association. The Association Subcommittee members were Tom Heinsheimer and Roger Hawkins. She reported that the compositions of the Subcommittee on the Association side had changed. Roger Hawkins was replaced by Anne Smith. The next scheduled meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2020 to review the final draft of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). Ms. Smith attended the last meeting and provided tons of feedback on the CWPP. She felt there was good progress on the CWPP and there was good 42 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-09-20 -17- conversation about the needs of the community. Mayor Mirsch stated the meetings have been very productive. The Block Captains involvement has made a significant difference. The Block Captains organized a field trip with the Association and Fire Department to visit the East Gate, which has been a contentious issue. Because of the field trip, it seems there may be some movement on that item. Councilmember Wilson stated the Honbo’s have been great in keeping the momentum up. City Manager Jeng added the Fire Department has been great as well. The Fire Department attends all the coordination meetings and Block Captain Meetings. They have been educating the City on evacuations. They were instrumental in the Field Trip with the Association Board Members and informed them about the care necessary for the entry/exit gates during emergencies. 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 9:24p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 2020 beginning at 7:00p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 43 -1- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 07:01p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers Present:Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:Pieper*. Others Present:Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director. Yohana Coronel, City Clerk. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Terry Shea, Finance Director. *Mayor Pro Tem Pieper was excused for his absence. 3.OPEN AGENDA - PUBLIC COMMENT WELCOME NONE. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A.MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED Councilmember Dieringer pointed out that she had some corrections to the minutes. City Manager Jeng confirmed that the corrections were received and assured Councilmember Dieringer that the corrections would be applied. 44 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -2- Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve all consent items with amendments to the minutes of November 25, 2019. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 5.COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6.PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE. 7.OLD BUSINESS NONE. 8.NEW BUSINESS A.DISCUSS THE PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY REGARDING THE THREAT OF COVID-19. City Manager Jeng advised surrounding agencies had declared a local emergency, which included the County of Los Angeles, 13 South Bay cities and wanted to discuss whether the Council wanted to do the same in response to COVID-19. The City of Rolling Hills is part of the South Bay Cities Council of Government (SBCCOG) and the only city that has not declared a local emergency. She highlighted that Bradbury, another Southern California city similar in size to Rolling Hills, had not declared a local emergency. She pointed out that other cities adjacent to Rolling Hills have departments that need more resources; for example, Parks and Recreation have restrooms that need servicing. They also must consider if Park Rangers are necessary to enforce social distancing. They need to assess if there is enough personnel to ensure emergency response times are adequate. The City of Rolling Hills does not have any of those issues to prepare for because the City is comprised of single-family homes. If there was a need for First Responders, they would be covered under the County’s Declaration of Emergency. City Manager Jeng stated she was not recommending the Council declare a local emergency. She reminded the Council that regardless which entity declares an emergency, the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows her to gather resources and obtain vital supplies because the City Manager is the Director of Emergency Services. Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 2.32.060 Per Section 3.32.060, A6, states “in the event of the proclamation of a local emergency; the proclamation of a state of emergency; or the Director of the State Office of Emergency Services, or the existence of a “state of war emergency” the Director of Emergency Services is allowed to do the following…” Since the County and State have declared an emergency, she has been empowered to make decisions without the Council having to declare a local emergency. 45 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -3- Councilmember Dieringer clarified that City Manager Jeng could proceed with all the items she mentioned if she declared a local emergency but if the State declared an emergency that would not include the County. City Manager Jeng confirmed and stated that the County’s declaration of emergency covers all the jurisdictions within its County. Councilmember Wilson asked if the City was subject to the most restrictive guidelines of whatever jurisdiction the City falls under. City Attorney Jenkins replied that the strictest rules apply. Councilmember Wilson inquired what would be the downside of declaring an emergency. City Manager Jeng replied that she spoke to Councilmember Dieringer about the same question. Once an emergency is declared, the City must report to the State. This means the City would have to document their expenditures and staff hours and see if there would be reimbursements at a later time. Other cities that have different departments may also use the declaration as a method to suspend existing rules. Mayor Mirsch asked if the City does not declare an emergency now was there anything to preclude the City from declaring down the line. City Attorney Jenkins replied that there was nothing that would preclude the City from declaring at a later time. Councilmember Dieringer would like to have confirmation of proposed reimbursement and that the City can, in fact, file through the County before providing a definitive answer on the matter. City Manager Jeng explained there are two parts to the reimbursement; 1) what would be eligible and 2) the City’s response activities for Rolling Hills. First Responders overtime pay would be considered an eligible item. Non-essential employees that are sent home and continue to receive pay would be a questionable. The subject of reimbursement is still a work in progress. Mayor Mirsch asked about the activation of the Emergency Operating Center (EOC) and whether that goes away if the City were to declare an emergency. City Manager Jeng stated that she was not sure if declaring an emergency affects the EOC. Other agencies declared a local emergency and opened their EOC at the lowest level. This means they do not have a physical person manning it, there is software that allows agencies to do it virtually. She advised she was not fully versed on how that works but believes when a call comes in; it triggers a chain-of-calls to the appropriate parties. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve staff’s recommendation and not declare a City emergency. City Attorney Jenkins suggested that the Council receive and file the item. He wanted to make sure the Council understood that the motion suggested by Councilmember Black does not preclude the City Manager from declaring an emergency in between meetings if circumstances change and 46 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -4- it is necessary to declare one. Councilmember Dieringer concurred with the City Attorney and suggested amending the first motion to include that the Council reserves the right to declare an emergency later if circumstances change. Councilmember Black made a second motion. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council approve staff’s recommendation and not declare a City emergency and receive the item. Councilmember Dieringer seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. B.CONSIDER AND APPROVE PARTICIPATION IN ALERT SOUTHBAY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM. City Manager Jeng introduced the Alert Southbay Notification System. It is a new system that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Before the arrival of Alert Southbay, along with recent legislation, cities did not have the ability to notify communities across borders. She gave an overview of Senate Bill 833 and 821. Bill 821 permits each county and city to grant access to the contact information of resident account holders through public utility bill records. This is important because the City’s notification system only serves the people who opt in. She informed the Council both Senate Bills would allow the City to pull data in order to notify residents of alerts even if they had not signed up for notifications. Majority of the South Bay Cities fall under the Los Angeles County Disaster Area known as Area G. Area G purchased Everbridge, which is the vendor selling Alert Southbay. Many cities currently use a notification system similar to Rolling Hills Notify- Me, which is owned by Blackboard. Notify-me aims to inform residents within a certain community. The City’s notification system has approximately 120 registrants, which is very limited given the population. If there were an explosion at the refinery, the refinery would be able to notify select cities of that event including residents that did not sign up for notifications. Alert Southbay allows the City to notify more residents, especially in pressing matters. She added the program would be beneficial to the City since it is a bedroom community. The residents would also be notified of events in the surrounding cities. City Manager Jeng recommended that the City participate in Southbay Alert. The City would have to subscribe to the Everbridge program to participate. The cost attached is $5,171.00 for the first year. The following two years would total $4,171.00. There is also an introductory cost to retrieve the white page data and that would be $5,000.00 per participant, however, the refinery is covering this cost. All Area G cities have enrolled except for Lawndale and Carson, but they are expected to join. The City of Rolling Hills was added to the project and is partnered with Rolling Hill Estates. The City must subscribe to the program to solely notify Rolling Hills residents. Councilmember Dieringer inquired who would be sending out the notifications. 47 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -5- City Manager Jeng replied that participants send their own notifications. She explained that Rolling Hills geographic area was added to the map features of Alert Southbay, but we cannot use the service until the City pays for it. Councilmember Wilson asked if Alert Southbay had anything to do with the fiber network that is being built. City Manager Jeng explained the fiber network ring is the infrastructure to be able to deliver faster internet service and is not related to Alert Southbay. Councilmember Wilson stated that he understood people would receive messages without opting in and further inquired if people could opt out. He also asked if Alert Southbay was the same thing as Everbridge. City Manager Jeng replied in the affirmative. She clarified that Everbridge is the parent company. She informed the Council that Alert Southbay went live in January/February of 2020. She advised that some South Bay Cities decided to transfer their data to Everbridge. Alert Southbay allows people to choose which cities notifications they would like to receive. Mayor Mirsch asked City Manager Jeng if she thought that joining Alert Southbay would improve the participation within the community and enhance their ability to receive important notifications. City Manager Jeng commented that it was her opinion that the COVID-19 situation will motivate people to sign on. Alert Southbay allows the City to get messages out to people that have never opted in for any notifications. It is a benefit to the agency to push out information but does not know if it will motivate people to opt into other notifications. Councilmember Wilson asked if people decide not to opt in, would they receive notifications for Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates. City Manager Jeng explained that if the City decides to participate, the white pages would be for Rolling Hills only. People would have to go to the site and register for other notifications. She explained that when Rolling Hills was added to Everbridge, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates were combined as one but does not know the reason why as she was not part of the original decision. It worked out for the best because if the City were not added in there would be additional upfront costs. Currently Rolling Hills is part of Rolling Hills Estates but if RHE were to send out a notification it would not include Rolling Hills. Councilmember Dieringer asked to confirm that the City currently could not initiate sending notifications to only Rolling Hills residents only. City Manager Jeng explained that if the City subscribes to the system, the City could send notifications to Rolling Hills residents only and choose if adjacent cities should receive pertinent notifications. 48 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -6- Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve to participate in the Alert Southbay notification system and subscribe to services on Everbridge. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. C.CONSIDER AND APPROVE MID-YEAR BUDGET YEAR. Finance Director Terry Shea gave an overview of the Mid-Year Budget report. He stated in June 2019 the City adopted a budget with a total of $2,278,000.00 in revenues, $2,234,000.00 in expenditures, and $329,000.00 in deficits. The main reason for the budget deficit was because of the transfer of money to the Traffic Safety Fund for roadway striping totaling $54,500.00, transfers to the Capital Improvement Fund for the Tennis Court Project $320,000.00, and $30,000.00 for the ADA design work at City Hall. He continued that the total General Fund year-to-date revenues were $1,076,405, which is $179,270 less than expected through February 2020. Expenditures were $1,129,921, which is $253,169 less than budgeted through February 2020. The FY 19/20 revenues compared to expenditures after transfers presents a decrease of $37,516 compared to an anticipated budgeted shortfall of $111,415 through February. As such, the City is $73,899 better than anticipated at mid-year. Total revenues were more than anticipated in property transfer tax and interest income, but he stated that interest income was declining rapidly and does not expect to see an increase because rates are dropping fast. Building and other Permit Fee revenues were down below the mid-year projections and is $60,000 below this time last year. There were a couple of months where the City paid instead of collecting money. He stated the costs for the City Attorney are slightly above the mid-year projected amount but are well below the mid-year amount in the Planning Department for view cases. Total Finance expenditures are as budgeted at mid-year. Total expenditures in Planning are less than anticipated due to the invoices from Los Angeles County for services being lower than the prior year through December 2019. The Planning Budget included $80,000 for the Housing Element, which has yet to be expended. Costs for the Storm Water Management through February is at $73,415, which is over the budgeted amount of $65,000, but overall, the Planning Department expenditures are well below the projected mid-year amounts, so no adjustment is being proposed. The original Traffic Safety Fund Budget included $40,000 for Road Striping. A Contract Change Order with PCI was approved in January 2020 to add work identified in Schedule B for $36,526.50. As part of the Staff Report, the additional funds were allocated from the tennis court improvement project.Through February, expenditures include engineering and project management totaling $12,545 mainly for engineering and project management. The original Capital Project Fund Budget included $320,000 for the Tennis Court improvements and $30,000 for the City Hall ADA Design work. Through February, the City has only expended $7,960 for lighting and project management and $5,360 on the City Hall ADA Design. The City Council allocated $36,526.50 from the Tennis Court Project to the Traffic Safety Fund as mentioned 49 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -7- above. At the October 14, 2019 City Council meeting, the Council allocated $34,200 for Fuel Load Reduction to be performed by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy). Through February, the City has not been billed by the Conservancy for the work performed. The original Utility Fund Budget included $150,000 for undergrounding projects and $22,000 for a Sewer Feasibility Study. For the undergrounding projects through February there is only $2,088 in expenditures. The City's contribution of $7,712 to the Eastfield Undergrounding Project Assessment Engineer fee has not posted to the account. For the Sewer Feasibility Study, the City expended $27,366 through February to Willdan for engineering and Alan Palermo for project management cost. The Sewer Feasibility Study started last fiscal year and the allocated budget for FY 19/20 assumed payout of certain expenses in FY 18/19 that did not materialize. Staff is not proposing any Budget Adjustments to the General Fund Revenues at this time. He advised his office would monitor the Building and other Permit Fees. Since revenues were down, it was a good thing that expenditures were down by approximately the same amount. The General Fund proposed expenditure adjustments have increased $10,000 for account 01-01-801 (City Attorney) and a $10,000 decrease in account 01-15-872 (Property Development – Legal Expense). The FY 19/20 mid-year budget review shows the City has a positive budget variance of $73,899. Revenues are down $179,270, expenditures are down $253,169, and net transfers in and out are equal. With no proposed budget adjustments to revenues and no change in total budgeted expenditures, the projected budget deficit is still $329,300. The projected General Fund balance by June 30, 2020, with the no proposed changes, would be $5,466,480, which is slightly over two times the City’s annual general fund expenditures. Councilmember Black thanked the Finance Director for his overview. Finance Director Shea offered to go over the schedules in the staff report. The first schedule was the General Fund revenues and expenditures on page 49. He read the summary and stated that revenues from July through February FY 19/20 were $1,076,405. The adjusted eight-month budget was $1,255,000.00, which indicates the City’s revenues are about 80% at mid-year and about 40% for the year. He stated that the biggest drop was due to the Building Permit being down. He stated that for expenditures, for the City’s Administration Department were at about 79% of the mid-year in salaries and that is due to the timing of onboarding people because the salaries were budgeted for the full year. He stated that salaries and benefits were down and that everything else was progressing okay. The Finance Department is right on budget so there was nothing to report. Planning and Development salaries and benefits are where he predicted. He stated that the City was up a bit in the NPDES but down in other areas, but overall, the City is at 80% at the mid-year and at about 53% at yeam r-end. Law Enforcement is down due to the budgeted amount for Wildlife and Coyote. The City is charging a little more to the CalCops Fund because the City had a little more money than anticipated. We are about $10,000.00 lower in law enforcement and $20,000.00 less in the Wildlife and Pet Management account. Mayor Mirsch asked to confirm that the coyote services fall under the law enforcement line item in the general fund. Finance Director Shea replied in the affirmative. 50 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -8- City Manager Jeng explained the mid-year budget report helps her track where the City stands in revenues. She reviews projections and identifies trends. If the trend indicates the City is not catching up the revenue that was budgeted, then she would slow down the expenditures for the rest of the year. She directed the Council to look at the last column on page 49, she stated that the percentage meant revenues are tracking 50% and above. She stated that some items could not be tracked by percentage, for example, striping. Once the striping project is complete there are no more expenditures. Then there are contractual service expenses with consultants, and she must assess if the City is depleting those funds quickly. She reported that the City is not overspending. There is some adjustment for legal fees but that is due to new issues. A transfer would be made to allocate legal expenses from the Planning Department back to the City Administration line item. She also wanted to add that the City was expecting revenue from Measure W, the clean water parcel tax, but it has not come in yet. The City budgeted $65,000.00 in the general fund that was supposed to be offset by Measure W. If Measure W does not come in as expected, then the line item would have to be increased in order to meet the expenses for the year. Councilmember Wilson stated that Building and other Permit Fees were down by $60,000.00 and asked if less construction lead to the reductions in the fees. City Manager Jeng replied that there were two parts. The first was the reduction of projects and the second was that the City had more grievances on properties. The City calls the Building and Safety Department to conduct inspections for complaints. For example, residents have reached out to the City stating they have drainage issues. The complaint was the rain caused all these issues. Building and Safety logs their hours when they come out for an inspection. At months end, they track expenditures plus revenue coming in from building permits then reconcile. In past years, the numbers have always been positive because there were more applications than expenditures. Recently, there have been fewer projects, which lead to less revenue from building permits but more inspections. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the item as presented with the adjustment. Councilmember Dieringer Mayor seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. D.CONSIDER AND APPROVE RENEWAL OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. City Manager Jeng stated that the agreement before them was a typical agreement that is approved by Council every five years. It allows the City to utilize County services. Mayor Mirsch asked if the agreement had anything to do with the Fire Department. City Manager Jeng answered that the Los Angeles County Fire Department services the City via 51 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -9- the Fire District. The Fire Department services fall outside this general services agreement. Councilmember Wilson asked if this agreement would include animal control. City Manager Jeng replied that was a separate contract. City Attorney Michael Jenkins clarified the general services agreement covers all services that are not covered by a specific contract. For example, if the City has a specific contract for Sheriff’s services, the general services agreement would not include that. He stated that it was his belief that the Animal Control is a separate contract and asked City Manager Jeng to confirm. City Manager Jeng replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Dieringer moved that the City Council approve the renewal of the Los Angeles County General Services contract. Councilmember Wilson Mayor seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A.CONSIDER ACTION TO ENCOURAGE STATE LEGISLATURE TO DELAY PAYMENTS OF PROPERTY TAX (ORAL). Councilmember Black stated that people’s businesses have gone to zero and the Federal Government has advocated a tax holiday, which means people do not have to pay their taxes until July 15th. He understood that the portion of Rolling Hills property taxes collected was about $0.07 or $0.08 on the dollar. He felt that the Council should assist their residents and request that the State not collect the City’s portion of property taxes until July 15th. He mentioned that rent evictions have been outlawed, which impacts property owners if they cannot collect rents. The City is in good financial shape and can stand to go a few months without hitting their tax receipts. Mayor Mirsch agreed and advised she reached out to other Peninsula Mayors to see if there was any interest because the request would have more impact if the whole area asked. This was after City Manager Jeng sent out the information from the County Treasurer and Tax Collector stating they had no authority to appease this sort of request and would have to approach the State. She heard back from RPV and RHE. They had some interest and if Rolling Hills wrote a letter they would sign on. The PVE Mayor did not reply to her request. When she was on the conference call with the other Mayors, he was against it because it was their only source of income. Councilmember Dieringer asked for staff’s position was on the issue. 52 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -10- City Manager Jeng indicated staff did not have a position on the matter. She reminded Mayor Mirsch the City’s largest revenue source is property tax but reiterated the City had enough in reserves if property taxes were delayed. Councilmember Black requested that along with the letter, staff and/or the City Manager approach the City’s local representatives and request they present the City’s request to the State Legislature. Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Black and asked if the City knew of other Cities outside the Peninsula considering this matter. City Manager Jeng did not have a sense of what other cities were considering but could reach out. She noticed cities were more concerned about PARS, rent evictions, parking enforcement, street sweeping, and other issues. There was a call between Mayor Mirsch and Mayor Pro Tem Pieper with Assemblyman Al Miratsuchi and other Peninsula Mayors recently where Mayor Pro Tem Pieper discussed delaying property taxes. Mayor Mirsch stated she would be happy to take lead on the project. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council direct staff to request the State and Local Legislature, including the Governor’s office, in writing with a direct approach to allow a property tax holiday for Rolling Hills residents up until July 15th to correlate with the Federal Tax Holiday. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion and the motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Pieper. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Councilmember Black asked when the Council would discuss reopening City Hall. Councilmember Dieringer commented that the City was under the Governor’s current directive to close City Hall until April. Councilmember Black replied the City was exempt. City Manager Jeng sent a notice to the community advising residents that City Hall is closed to the public as of March 16th and the closure would run until the end of March per the first Health Order. Since then, a second and third Health Order was released. The third Health Order stated that the closure does not apply to public employees in the course of their employment for a government agency, but also states that all public and private gatherings are prohibited. She proceeded to state that she welcomed the Councils thoughts on the matter. City Attorney Jenkins stated that this item was not listed on the agenda for discussion. He stated that the Council could agendize the item for discussion for the next meeting. 53 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -11- Councilmember Black stated the next Council meeting is scheduled for April 13th and that does not work for him. He is not interested in keeping City Hall closed and wants to open by April 1 st. He stated there was nothing in a health order that requires City Hall to be closed. Health Orders one, two, and three had to do with group gatherings and social distancing. He believes City Hall lends itself very well to maintain social distancing. He could place tables at the front door and residents could not get anywhere near the staff. The staff could place cones or signs every six feet to make sure residents do not line up too close together when they are waiting for services. Mayor Mirsch repeated the item was not on the agenda and suggested the Council have an emergency meeting via teleconference since Dr. Black would like to have a discussion. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the Council could adjourn the meeting to any date and time they would like between now and the next meeting. Mayor Mirsch asked Councilmember Black if that was okay. It was obvious that he wanted to have the discussion before April 13th,and she did not see any alternative. Councilmember Black replied if that is what it takes. City Hall should not have closed from a medical viewpoint and needs to be opened right away. He does not want it to continue past March. Mayor Mirsch asked if there was interest among the Council to have an emergency meeting. Councilmember Wilson and Councilmember Dieringer concurred. Mayor Mirsch asked that the Council teleconference in order to practice social distancing. Councilmember Black asked why the Council was asked to teleconference. He suggested conducting the meeting before April 1st. Mayor Mirsch asked how much notification was needed to host a special meeting. City Attorney Jenkins stated that if the Council wanted to meet within the next three days, then the Council would have to call a special meeting. If the Council went beyond the 72 hours, then they could adjourn the meeting to that time and a new agenda would be posted. Councilmember Black advised the Council had four days left in the current week or they could meet on Monday, March 30th. Again, he specified City Hall should be open today and he does not want it to continue any longer. Mayor Mirsch asked what the Councils desired for dates and times. Discussion ensued among the Council and they agreed that the meeting would be adjourned to Monday, March 30th, 2020 at 7pm. Councilmember Black stated that he recommended following the recommendations of the CDC and the State. He also was happy to recommend sites with good information on COVID-19. 54 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -12- Councilmember Wilson remarked that the mustard was in full bloom. He recalled the Land Conservancy advised there was an ideal time to mow it. He believes it is right before the mustard releases seeds and the City is at that window. He would hate for the City to miss the opportunity but understands that it may not be addresses right now. City Manager Jeng stated she could not open up discussion because the item was not agendized but would investigate it and bring it back. Councilmember Wilson asked about the Crest East striping and questioned the appropriateness of the striping used in that section. He inquired where the striper gets the specifications. City Manager Jeng replied CalTrans standards are used and its manual on uniformed traffic control devices for the state. Mayor Mirsch stated that communication is key. It is important to have more communication to know what is going on for the next Mayor. She knows that other cities are having nightly briefings and thought that was a good idea. She asked if the Council would be interested in End-of-Day communication from Elaine. Councilmember Black stated that the Council has a group text and prefers to use text to communicate. He stated that email would not work for him because he is not at home watching his computer. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the exception under the Governor’s new order is that it allows the majority of the Council, in real time, to listen to an update on the COVID-19 emergency and ask questions. Council can listen through a telephone, a teleconference, zoom meeting, or be present even though it is not an actual meeting of the City Council. This exception does not allow the Council to engage in any other form of communication with each other consisting of a majority. It does not allow emailing, texting, or any other communication among the majority unless it is a unilateral communication from the Mayor or City Manager to the rest of the Council to stay updated. Mayor Mirsch thanked the City Attorney for his clarification. City Manager Jeng asked the Council if they would find it helpful to have a phone call with her on some frequency to get an update on the development of COVID-19 and response activities. Councilmember Dieringer stated that Council could call her on an as needed basis. In keeping with the City Attorney’s explanation, the Council would not be able to interact on a group text or group email to ask questions because that is not the forum. It is only on news conference that the exception applies. City Manager Jeng commented that if the Council is on a conference call with her, they are allowed to ask questions about the update, but they cannot have a conversation among themselves about 55 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -13- the issue. She asked if the Council would like a call from her to disseminate information, which would allow them to ask questions with respect to COVID-19. Mayor Mirsch asked if Councilmember Dieringer had a question and City Manager Jeng provided her information; she wondered if that information would be better shared if all of the Councilmembers were listening to it at the same time. City Attorney Jenkins stated that City Manager Jeng could provide the Council with regular updates in writing. If City Manager Jeng receives questions that are of interest to the Council, she could send an email. Councilmember Black stated that it might not be in real time for the Councilmembers. If it is really important City Manager Jeng could simply send a group text. Councilmember Wilson asked under what circumstances might there be a need to address the Council in real time; perhaps to report an outbreak in the City. Councilmember Black stated if residents became infected what would the City do differently. They would still practice social distancing and stay home. The Council should assume that residents are already infected and more will likely become infected. The reality is we probably already know people that are infected and will know people that will die from it, but that does not mean they are going to do anything differently. It is going to settle down, the curve will flatten, which is happening. Some of the medicines being made might work and then a vaccine will ultimately become available, but it will take longer. The reality is there are certain people in the City that are infected. Mayor Mirsch asked if the Council wanted to conduct the meeting on the 30th in person or via teleconference. Councilmember Dieringer stated that she felt that accommodations should be made for both. Mayor Mirsch asked Councilmember Black for his opinion on whether it was okay to meet in person for the next meeting. Councilmember Black stated absolutely. He stated that the distancing is six feet and that it is physics not magic. Mayor Mirsch stated that showing up in person was optional for the Council and staff. 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 56 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-23-20 -14- 08:18p.m. The next special meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, March 30, 2020 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 57 -1- MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 7:01p.m. via teleconference. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers participating via teleconference: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper Black, Dieringer and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:None. Others participating via teleconference: Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Yohana Coronel, City Clerk. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. 3.OPEN AGENDA NONE. 4.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A.DISCUSS RE-OPENING CITY HALL TO THE PUBLIC ON APRIL 1, 2020. Mayor Mirsch explained that the item for tonight’s discussion was brought up at the City Council Meeting on March 23, 2020. She indicated that the item could not be discussed because it was not agendized. This adjourned meeting was scheduled to discuss the matter. Mayor Mirsch expressed that she was very uncomfortable discussing the item before the Council. She thought it was inappropriate to discuss opening City Hall to the public given all the latest developments. The State, Federal and County all released recommendations and orders that strongly encouraged people to stay safe at home. In her opinion, this included the Council and City staff. In order to make sure Councilmembers did not speak over each other, she directed them to speak in alphabetical order. Councilmember Black stated that he was the Councilmember that brought up the topic at the last City Council meeting. He noted that the title of the agenda item was wrong, and the City was not aligned with the Los Angeles County Health Order because that order did not specifically include 58 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -2- public entities. People are asked to adhere to public distancing of six feet or more and not have large group gatherings, but businesses and entities considered essential could remain open. He understood that it was normal to be afraid or concerned but it was more important to know how to manage fear. It was brought to his attention that City Hall staff was sent home because a part-time staff member reported possible exposure on Thursday, March 19th. Councilmember Black said medical professionals know that a person is only contagious 24-48 hours prior to showing symptoms. He specifically sent out the recommendations from hospitals and the CDC as to when people could go to back to work after being in close contact with someone with the virus. He pointed out that none of the City’s actions followed CDC recommendations. Part of leadership is to show people how to behave and not panic. He stated that the City’s actions represented one panic move after another. He stated that City staff should be in the building, the building should be open, and that staff should observe six-foot distances. He indicated that with a small staff, they were safer in City Hall than anywhere else. Councilmember Dieringer shared that she works in the public sector. She stated the State Supreme Court was drafting new measures because of the latest developments. Her office is dealing with criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to have a trial. Notwithstanding the importance of these constitutional rights, the Courts have decided to suspend cases that were in trial. She commented that this pandemic is being taken very seriously. She concluded that she was not in favor of opening City Hall. She pointed out that the City has a very small staff and if one person were to get sick, everyone would have to be quarantined, bringing everything to a halt. The City needed to exercise caution and Councilmember Dieringer added that there was nothing that could not be done through phone calls and email. Residents could drop things off and staff could retrieve them without having personal contact. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated that he does not understand why the grocery clerks, Costco employees, and the guys at the marijuana dispensary must go to work and City staff would not go to work. Until recently, City Hall accepted walk-ins and conducted business by appointments. He thought the set up was very reasonable. He stated he goes back and forth on the issue and cannot come up with an answer. He wondered if the City was conducting business effectively while telecommuting. He wondered if the City stopped permitting and reviewing plans and were these functions also stopped at LA County offices. He commented that Rolling Hills is a small piece of a bigger puzzle. The current situation does not allow the City to stand out and be different. He believed closing City Hall is wrong if staff’s physical absence prevents business from being conducted. Mayor Pro Tem inquired if business is disrupted with LA County offices closed? He expressed working at City Hall was safer than working at any other place. City Attorney Michael Jenkins suggested City Manager Jeng clarify some of the concerns raised by Mayor Pro Tem Pieper. He observed there was a perception that City Hall closed its doors, staff walked away, there was no work being performed, and that was not his understanding. City Manager Jeng reported that City Hall was closed to the public on Monday, March 16, 2020. City staff continued to report to work as usual behind closed doors until Wednesday, March 25, 2020 when all staff were directed to temporarily telecommute because a part-time staff member reported she was exposed to someone that may have the COVID-19. City Manager Jeng said the 59 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -3- item before the Council was to discuss whether City Hall should be opened to the public and not whether City staff should telecommute. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that City staff had been telecommuting because of the exposure to the part-time employee. Councilmember Black insisted no exposure occurred. He stated that a lot of non-medical people were making incorrect medical treatment plans and it made no sense. City Attorney Jenkins stated the status quo before the possible exposure was that all employees were physically reporting to work, but the doors were closed to the public. If a member of the public had city business, they could make an appointment. He explained that nothing different was being proposed. He clarified for the Council that the only question before them was should City Hall unlock the doors during business hours and have unrestricted access from any member of the public. City Manager Jeng added that the County also closed its doors to the public. It was her understanding that County staff was still working in the office but at a limited capacity. The County has since developed ways to issue permits and check plans remotely. They were also exploring ways to pay fees remotely. All these services did not exist prior to the COVID-19. She stated that City staff is in constant contact with the County’s Building and Safety office that serves Rolling Hills. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked about daily foot traffic at City Hall prior to closure. City Manager Jeng responded that majority of City Hall’s walk-ins were from residents to discuss issues requiring city assistance. These visits have been replaced by phone calls and there has been no feedback or service issues. Consultants visit City hall to drop off plans. They have been directed to submit plans electronically and added that it is more efficient with electronic submittal. There have been no requests for walk-in service. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper stated he was in support of status quo. He stated that more City services need to be streamlined and that the City could use this time to transition. He stated it did not matter to him one way or another unless he hears from residents of inadequate service. Councilmember Wilson concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Pieper. He shared that his business is considered essential and had conflicting feelings. He was dealing with employees who were very concerned with customer interactions and had to find ways to address it. Some of his employees expressed concerned about proximity to other employees so his company implemented social distancing requirements. Some of his employees expressed concern about continuing to work even though his company did its best to make sure all employees felt safe and comfortable. On the other hand, he stated that a lot of his employees were happy to be employed. There is real fear within people and that fear takes a toll on employees. Councilmember Wilson expressed the importance of City Hall being open to the public, but it appeared that the important business was continuing. He stated he missed having the public at the Council meetings and some of the orders were heavy handed perhaps unnecessary, but we won’t know if it was needed. 60 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -4- Mayor Mirsch stated that she respected Councilmember Black as a physician and trusted him with her care. However, she took issue with his statement of “non-medical people making decisions” because she too has been listening to Public Health Officials such as Dr. Jerome Adams, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Dr. Barbara Ferrer. They all continue to stress that people should have limited contact with the public. She reiterated the City’s business could continue without having the office open to the public. She received comments from residents questioning the need to open City Hall to the public. Furthermore, the City was not perceived as panicking but rather following guidelines from the public health government officials and other physicians in a position to provide information. Councilmember Black stated City Hall was panicking and it made no sense to him. He called for a vote on the item. Mayor Pro Tem Piper stated that he agreed with Councilmember Black, however he proposed a motion for City Hall to continue to operate as is. Mayor Mirsch asked for clarification on the appropriate motion. City Attorney Jenkins clarified that the question was whether City Hall should be opened to the public. Councilmember Black could make a motion to reopen City Hall to the public or someone else could make a motion to maintain the status quo. He noted that the status quo was City Hall would be available to the public by appointment, email, or by phone. Councilmember Black motioned that City Hall be reopened to the public in accordance with the Los Angeles County Public Health recommendations and the CDC guidelines and pretend that staff is present at City Hall. The motion was not seconded. Mayor Mirsch asked if Council needed a motion to keep the status quo. City Attorney Jenkins stated no motion was needed to maintain the status quo. Councilmember Black requested to continue the meeting to next week to discuss staff’s physical presence at City Hall. The City was going against medical practices regarding the Coronavirus. He requested to have the City Council meet weekly because it was his opinion that bad decisions were being made. Mayor Mirsch stated that the next regular Council meeting was scheduled for April 13, 2020. She inquired if Councilmember Black wanted to hold a meeting on April 06, 2020. Councilmember Black stated that this is an emergency and the City Council should meet as soon as possible to resolve City staff not being at work. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if City staff was going to be available to work. 61 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -5- City Manager Jeng stated she is waiting for the COVID-19 test result. If the result is negative, staff will physically return to City Hall. If the test result is positive, she would seek further information before proceeding. Councilmember Black stated he disagreed with the City Manager’s actions. If the employee was potentially exposed on the 19th and had shown no symptoms by the 30th this person did not have the virus on the 19th. The part-time employee could have contracted the disease on the 27th by going to the supermarket but did not contract the virus on the 19th. Mayor Mirsch asked if there was a possibility that the employee could be a carrier of the disease. Councilmember Black stated that carriers were not necessarily infectious. A person could be infectious between 24-48 hours before they show symptoms. He again stated that the part-time employee could not have become infected on the 19th if the person infected first showed symptoms the 24th. City Manager Jeng stated the Council entrusted her with the operations of City Hall and she was doing so to the best of her ability. Although she is not a medical professional and does not have one on staff, she gathered the best information available to care for the wellbeing of the community and City staff. Councilmember Black replied that the City Manager had a medical professional on her Council who was willing to talk to her. He inquired if the person was tested? It was his understanding that people do not have to get tested and further added that the test results fall under patient privacy. Test result for individuals cannot be legally released to other individuals. City Manager Jeng stated according to the employer of the person, a city official of another city, he was tested, and his test result will be shared. City Attorney Jenkins reminded the Mayor that there was a request to schedule an adjourned meeting for Monday, April 6, 2020 to reassess the situation. Mayor Mirsch stated she would like to schedule a meeting for next Monday and inquired if she needed a second motion. City Attorney Jenkins stated she could adjourn the meeting to Monday, April 6th, set a time, and wait for a second motion to vote. Councilmember Black moved that the City Council adjourn the City Council meeting of March 30, 2020 to Monday, April 06, 2020 at 7pm. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Mirsch, Pieper, Black, Dieringer, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 62 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -6- ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Mayor Mirsch provided an update on her conversations with the State Assembly representative and Senator Ben Allen’s office regarding the City’s request to extend the property tax payment deadline. She was unable to reach Governor Newsom’s office. She also spoke with the Tax Collector’s office and the County Treasurer Tax Collector’s office. The League of California Cities and seven other agencies sent a letter asking the State not to extend the property tax payment deadline. The responses she received from her outreach was that a person could appeal to have their late fees waived after April 11th. If the person’s reason for late payment had to do with COVID-19, a task force would investigate the request. All the people she spoke with did not support a payment deadline extension because property tax is a revenue source for the cities necessary to pay for first responders, doctors, and essential services. Councilmember Black stated that it was his understanding that if a person wanted their late fees waived, they would have to prove that they were physically incapable of doing so due to COVID- 19. He asked if his interpretation was correct. Mayor Mirsch stated that she wondered the same thing but unfortunately, she was not able to get an answer. Councilmember Black asked City Attorney Jenkins if he would go to jail if he recommended that people not pay their property taxes if they were having a hard time. City Attorney Jenkins replied he would not be violating any laws by providing his opinion. Councilmember Dieringer stated Councilmember Black had the right to free speech. City Attorney Jenkins indicated that Councilmember Black needed to make clear that he was stating his personal opinion and was not speaking as a Councilmember. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 7:50p.m. to an adjourned meeting of the City Council scheduled for Monday, April 06, 2020 beginning at 7:00p.m. via teleconference. 63 Minutes City Council Meeting 03-30-20 -7- Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 64 -1- MINUTES OF A JOINT STUDY SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 6:07p.m. via teleconference. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers participating via teleconference: Mayor Mirsch, Black*, Dieringer, Pieper, and Wilson. Commissioners Present: Chairman Chelf, Cardenas, Cooley, Kirkpatrick and Seaburn. Councilmembers Absent:None. Others participating via teleconference: Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director. Yohana Coronel, City Clerk. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney. *Councilmember Black joined the meeting at 6:47pm. 3.OPEN AGENDA –PUBLIC COMMENT NONE. 4.CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION PCS Director Meredith Elguira gave an introduction of the joint study session between the Planning Commission and the City Council. She highlighted the list of discussion topics submitted by both bodies for input and/or questions to create a path forward. Enforcement of Power on Nuisance PCS Director Meredith Elguira explained the City receives numerous complaints regarding lights, landscaping, dead vegetation, fallen trees on private property, and damaged fences. Commissioner Cooley asked how the City distinguishes a nuisance from a code violation. Assistant City Attorney Jane Abzug replied that nuisance is defined per the municipal code, which states a "nuisance" shall be defined as anything which is injurious to health or safety, or is indecent 65 Minutes Joint Study Session between PC & CC 04-13-20 -2- or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property…” (RHMC, Chapter 8.24). She added the section also sets forth that the Council may define by ordinance any particular condition constituting a nuisance. If the Planning Commission had a particular item to recommend to the Council as a nuisance, that could be a way to address the enforcement of power on nuisance. City Manager Jeng commented that from an operational standpoint, it becomes difficult to differentiate the two because there are times when code violations are continuous, and it becomes a nuisance. Chair Chelf did not recall handling nuisance issues. It seemed that City staff is more familiar with nuisance issues. He stated that some people have had their green fence up for years and roll-off containers in the front yard. He feels that residents are abusing their fencing permit and that is a more important issue. The containers should be placed in the backyard or side yard and residents should not be allowed to bring in more than one at a time. They should only be for building materials and not used for storage. Assistant City Attorney Jane Abzug commented this topic came up about 6 months ago when discussing resolutions of approval and placing conditions on construction and trailers. She reminded the Council and the Planning Commission that if the City were to prohibit those things outside of the construction context there would need to be a code amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Piper asked how the City determines when to direct a property owner to remove the fencing when they have an open permit. Chair Chelf advised the Planning Commission had discussions about a fence time limit. It was suggested that the property owner reapply for a fencing permit every 6 months and provide proof why the fence was needed. If no proof is submitted, then the property owner would have a certain number of days to remove the fencing. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper wondered how the City could deal with the outliers that have keep their fence up. Chair Chelf recognizes there is always someone that will abuse the timeline forcing the City to change all the rules. He suggested having a safeguard in place if a property owner has a fence up for no reason; then City has a mechanism to enforce removal. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked the PCS Director to create and present a manageable process to the Planning Commission to make it part of the rules. Chair Chelf added if the City made the applicant responsible for renewing their fencing permit every 6 months, there would be no need to make a big deal of it. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that there was not a lot of fencing around the City. He suggested better communication between property owners, contractors, and the Planning Commission. 66 Minutes Joint Study Session between PC & CC 04-13-20 -3- Chair Chelf suggested defining what “under construction” means to give property owners guidelines to keep or remove fencing. PCS Director Elguira replied that staff could easily address the issue with the Code Enforcement Officer and make the timeframe of the fencing part of the conditions of approval for projects. She added that it was easier when the language is part of the code. It was also noted that Building and Safety input would be needed. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper presumed the Council needed to figure out how to implement the timeframe of fencing into the City’s municipal code. He asked if the Planning Commission would take lead on this process and bring it to the Council for approval. PCS Director Elguira replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Wilson cautioned both bodies they would have to be very specific about the proposed regulations. A construction container could be easily confused with a roll-off dumpster. He also reminded both bodies that containers come in various sizes. Mayor Mirsch recalls addressing that issue regarding a project on Crest. Decisions were made that specified the size and number of storage containers and should be listed in the conditions of approval. Councilmember Dieringer recommended the City talk to Building and Safety to better define the need, type, and how long the container should remain on the property. PCS Director Elguira replied that the planning department would follow up on both issues with the Building and Safety Department. Tree and View Protection PCS Director Elguira reported she receives numerous calls about tree and view protections. She was processing one case and estimates three more on the horizon. She has submitted one letter and had two residents inquire about the process. She determined this was becoming a hot topic. Commissioner Kirkpatrick asked if the residents were interested in understanding the process or were, they attempting to resolve an issue. PCS Director Elguira responded one resident has been going back and forth with their neighbor over a year. Another resident spoke to their neighbor and wrote a letter, while one resident requested advice from her and the City Manager on how to approach his neighbor regarding his view problem. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper commented the City modified the rules. These three cases need to go through the process to determine if the hybrid compromise works. If logical conclusions are reached, then they could leave it as is. If it does not go well, the City will have to change the process again. He does not want to change anything without the hybrid rules being tested. 67 Minutes Joint Study Session between PC & CC 04-13-20 -4- ADU & JADUs PCS Director Elguira reported the City adopted amended ordinances based on the State’s new laws requiring cities to allow ADUs and JADUs. The process starts with a review of the requirements and staff provides the applicant with stringent guidelines. One application was submitted and approved; however, the applicant has not picked up the plans. The applicant met the setback and height requirements and the covenant is being prepared. A second applicant requested a site visit. Thus far, every applicant has been open to amending their design, setback, and plans to blend in with the City’s character. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper asked if there was need for the Planning Commission to address ADUs and JADUs. PCS Director Elguira advised the process for ADUs and JDU’s is ministerial. Chair Chelf fears some people will use the ADU process to bypass the Planning Commission’s approval process of a conditional use permit (CUP). Assistant City Attorney Jane Abzug replied State law specifically prohibits requiring discretionary review for ADUs and JADUs. If a property owner has a guesthouse a CUP is still required. PCS Director Elguira asked if there were any concerns. Several questions were raised regarding the States laws, undergrounding, and septic tanks. PCS Director Elguira indicated that the City has standards that will be enforced. Regarding undergrounding, the guidelines state it must be done when upgrading the electrical panel. The septic systems would have to be addressed with the Building and Safety Department. Housing Element PCS Director Elguira conveyed the City was in the process of responding to HCD. City Manager Jeng is reviewing the draft. Alternative options are being explored regarding how the City will comply and provide 18 affordable units. With the passing of the new ADU laws, the State is allowing cities to count their ADU’s toward affordable units given that there is a program in place making it feasible for the homeowner to build an ADU on their property. The City is looking to move in that direction and try to comply with the RHNA obligations using ADU’s and JADU’s. She informed the Planning Commission and the Council that she was not sure how the State would receive the City’s proposal making it a calculated risk. The City is going to wait to hear back from the State before moving forward with the school site or any other site. A question was presented if the City had to prove that ADU’s and JADU’s are being used for affordable housing. City Attorney Jenkins explained the availability of ADUs in the zoning ordinance alone will not be sufficient to obtain a certification for the housing element. The only way an ADU program will succeed is if the ADUs are covenanted for affordability and actually built. The only way the ADUs are going to be covenanted for affordability is if the City were to provide sufficient incentive for a 68 Minutes Joint Study Session between PC & CC 04-13-20 -5- property owner to place a covenant on their property and that the unit built will only be rented to income eligible persons. There was internal discussion and there are no viable financial incentives that can be provided. The City cannot rely on the ADU program to satisfy the RHNA requirements particularly for affordable housing. The City will have to identify some sites but is not limited to the two institutional sites located outside the gates. Residential zone sites could also be considered along Palos Verdes Drive. City Manager Jeng informed the Planning Commission that the City has a work plan with the HCD. They are currently editing the 2013-2014 housing element report. There will be a second round of edits that the Commission will be a part of that includes public outreach. She anticipates this will occur in September/October 2020. Councilmember Black joined the meeting at 6:47p.m. Stormwater Councilmember Black remarked that the City has less than 10 storm water exits. His hope is to have property owners address their own water runoff by implementing drain catch basins. He would like to start with individual homes then move on to individual canyons until all storm drains are eliminated. Commissioner Kirkpatrick replied that he supports his idea but suggested analyzing each site where catch basins would be placed. The Planning Commission and the Council both pledged support for storm water runoff, however, they would like to conduct a study in order to better understand what the catch basins do and the cost before making it a requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper suggested the Planning Commission take lead on how storm water runoff should be addressed. Chair Chelf commented that the subject matter is outside of the Planning Commissions realm and will need a consultant to guide them on how to control water in order to provide suggestions to the Council. City Manager Jeng remarked that she would work with PCS Director Elguira on considerations, contact consultants to seek more information about storm water, and come up with some measures. She noted that the Planning Commission is interested in looking at cost while the Council is interested in eliminating discharge. They will combine the two and put a proposal together to present to the Planning Commission and then the Council. She will report on their progress and come back with a date to hold another joint study session. 5. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 07:03 p.m. The next meeting of the City Council is scheduled to be held on Monday, April 27, 2020 beginning at 7:00 p.m. via teleconference. 69 Minutes Joint Study Session between PC & CC 04-13-20 -6- Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Leah Mirsch Mayor 70 -1- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2020 1.CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Mayor Mirsch at 7:06p.m. via teleconference. 2.ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilmembers participating via teleconference: Mayor Pieper, Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson. Councilmembers Absent:None. Others participating via teleconference: Elaine Jeng, P.E., City Manager. Meredith Elguira, Planning and Community Services Director Yohana Coronel, City Clerk. Michael Jenkins, City Attorney. Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney. Chris Sarabia, Conservation Director. Terry Shea, Finance Director. Jim Walker, Budget Consultant. 3.OPEN AGENDA Alfred Visco petitioned the City to immediately abate the extreme fire hazard and public nuisance in Paint Brush Canyon via email. He requested an update on the status of 7 Ranchero Road as well. He suggested the City reduce the amount of high fire risk vegetation with detailed mapping and a presentation from the Fire Safe Council representative. He has not noticed any Mustard mowing as proposed by the Land Conservancy. He recommended the City explore the possibility of canyon properties transferring ownership to the Nature Preserve or placing an easement on relevant portions of the property for the Nature Preserve to conduct maintenance. 4.CONSENT CALENDAR Matters which may be acted upon by the City Council in a single motion. Any Councilmember may request removal of any item from the Consent Calendar causing it to be considered under Council Actions. A.MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED B.PAYMENT OF BILLS. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED 71 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -2- C. REPUBLIC SERVICES RECYCLING TONNAGE REPORT FOR MARCH 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED D. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2020. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED E.UPDATED CITY COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDART FOR FY 2020-2021. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED F. NEW 2020 SPRING CLEANUP DATES. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE AS PRESENTED. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer requested to pull item 4A. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council approve consent items 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E and 4F. Councilmember Black seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 5.COMMISSION ITEMS NONE. 6.PUBLIC HEARING NONE. 7.OLD BUSINESS A.CONSIDER AND APPROVE A PROPOSAL FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE FUEL REMOVAL WORK IN THE PRESERVE IN THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY BORDER. City Manager Jeng reported the City Council approved an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Land Conservancy) on October 14, 2019 in the amount of $34,200 for fire fuel removal. Two acres of Acacia removal within the northeastern portion of the Portuguese Bend Reserve along the Rim Trail was $27,000 and $7,200 for removing 16 acres of invasive mustard plant around Grapevine Trail. The Land Conservancy completed this work in early March. The agreement included a maintenance article for three years at $12,000 per year for springtime Mustard mowing and monitoring of Acacia to prevent regrowth. The Land Conservancy’s work commenced on April 20, 2020. During the February 10, 2020 City Council meeting, Land Conservancy staff provided a presentation of the fire fuel removal conducted between November 2019 and February 2020. Per the Council’s request for added fire fuel removal in the Preserve, Conservation Director Chris Sarabia, attended the teleconference to answer 72 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -3- questions. City Manager Jenginformed the Council she had asked the Land Conservancy to submit maps of the 2019 proposal and the current proposal. She highlighted the different areas on maps #1, page 47, and map #2, page 48, that were worked on in 2019 and how it lines up with the new proposal of $50,000.00. Mr. Sarabia provided overview of the maps and pointed out the work underway by the Land Conservancy. He addressed Mr. Visco’s comment and stated they were working on the accessible areas of the canyon and noted that Paint Brush Canyon was complicated to access. He explained part of the proposal includes limbing the Pine trees because they are too expensive to remove but offered to obtain a quote from a contractor if the Council preferred. He noted communities grow attached to their Pine trees and are unwilling to remove them. He is working with Cal State Long Beach Master’s Program of Geographical Information Science who is attempting to map the entire Peninsula. The mapping will inform the Land Conservancy where the Acacia is located, especially in tough areas, and hopes to share that information with all the Peninsula Cities. Councilmember Wilson asked if the Mustard seed is being caught before it drops, how many Pine trees were being limbed up, and how high was the limbing. Mr. Sarabia advised the Mustard is currently flowering and developing seeds, so they try to remove it now to cut out the seed bank. The contractor would address the trees on the side of the conservancy, approximately 3 or 4, and limb up the standard six feet. He warned if a tree trunk is on private property the Land Conservancy would not touch it. Councilmember Black asked what was happening with the green between Fire Station Trail and Crest going west toward the school. Mr. Sarabia replied that the area is full of native plants, however, the area is very hard to access and would exceed their budget because of the equipment required. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer asked if the Mustard mowing was needed for the next three years and what is the cost per year to mow the pink area on the map. She also inquired if Mr. Sarabia knew about the fire issue and the efficacy of removing the Mustard versus the Acacia. Mr. Sarabia replied in the affirmative and stated he did not have the cost for the mowing of the pink area and did not included in the proposal because of budget constraints. He could include it in the follow-up proposal with a multi-year maintenance plan if that was the Council’s pleasure. He explained that Acacia is targeted because it is a long-life shrub; the longer it lives, the bigger it grows. Mustard is an annual plant and only lives one to two years, therefore when it is mowed it is thinned out. Mayor Pieper replied that the Council would like a multi-year maintenance plan. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. Alfred Visco commented via email that he was in support of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy proposal. He noted no explanation was given why the Pine trees would not be 73 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -4- removed and only limbed up because Pine trees and Acacia are listed as high fire hazard plants by the LA County Fire Department Ready!Set!Go! brochure. He recommends that the Pine trees be removed but if they cannot be removed, then the canopies should be thinned. Mayor Pieper asked how long it would take to complete the pink area and requested the Land Conservancy submit the cost for maintaining the area. He also requested the estimated cost to cut down the three Pine trees. Mr. Sarabia speculated it would take 37 workdays to mow the Acacia and advised he could obtain a quote for the removal of the Pine trees and include it in the maintenance proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented it is important to know the cost of mowing the pink area before making a decision because it was not worth mowing if the maintenance could not be kept in future years. Mayor Pieper asked how long it would take to finish the blue area. Mr. Sarabia replied that estimated completion was three and a half weeks. Mayor Pieper explained that the blue area can be mowed but the pink area is downhill and would need to be worked on by hand. Mayor Pieper declared after the blue area is finished, the Council would decide on the pink area. He requested the cost to cut down the three Pine trees versus limbing them up be provided by the next meeting so the Council can make a decision. Councilmember Wilson asked if it would cost less than $22,000.00 to come back the second year. Mr. Sarabia replied it is typically less but could consult with his field crew. He noted it is a temporary safety measure that brings peace of mind. Mowing for fuel modifications is a yearly process. The Conservancy takes an ecological approach and uses science to enhance advantages. Councilmember Mirsch requested confirmation about the proposed Pine trees not being on private property. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council postpose the decision until the next meeting when the total cost of the new proposal is provided by Mr. Sarabia. Councilmember Black seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 74 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -5- B.PRESENTATION ON A POTENTIAL PROJECT TO ELIMINATE STORMWATER DISCHARGE AT ONE DISCHARGE POINT FROM THE CITY TO THE RECEIVING WATERS. City Manager Jeng referenced the City Council Strategic Plan Workshop held on January 25, 2020, where priorities were identified for the next three years. One of the topics explored was parcel project polices for individual parcels and capital improvement projects throughout the City to elevate the requirements from MS4 permits. She conferred with a consultant because all la county agencies are discharging their stormwater to certain bodies of water. Rolling Hills is divided in two watersheds on the Peninsula. The southern watershed drains to the Santa Monica Bay. The other watershed, East of City Hall, drains to the Machado Lake. The Regional Water Quality Control Board mandates the City monitor the drainage quality entering Santa Monica Bay and Machado Lake. The Santa Monica Bay reading indicates the City’s water is clean, however, issues arose with Machado Lake. The Regional Water Quality Control Board specified the City would not be considered as discharging water if the City can hold the discharge at a certain volume (a 24- hour rainstorm at the 85% percentile). City Manager Jeng shared a presentation illustrating that staff could evaluate the discharge points to Machado Lake and deploy a project to be in compliance with the MS4 permits and approach them for some relief. The proposal includes discharge points along Brent Spring Canyon at City Hall. The Regional Board advised the City needs to capture 1.1 million gallons in that drainage area, which translates to building a storage catch basin with a relieve valve in case of recurrent storms. In order to meet that requirement, the City would need to draw the water down; run a pipe down from that canyon to a nearby sewer facility and discharge it into the sewer. This would require the Sanitation Districts permission. The cost of the project is approximately 3.2 million dollars, which could be paid with the local Measure W funds. There is also Prop 1 money from the State that can be used along with other grant sources. Mayor Pieper asked how many exits points the City needs to cover to be compliant and how the City would deal with the exit points on private property. City Manager Jeng replied all the points that exit to the Machado Lake assumes worst case scenario and the City would have to get easements rights from property owners or have some agreement in place. The property owner adjacent to City Hall dedicated half of Brent Spring Canyon and is now City owned. Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed dam would be built on City or private property and what did the allowance line item mean. City Manager Jeng replied it would be a combination of the City, Rolling Hills Estates, and private property. The line item was for permitting with various agencies like the Sanitation District. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer asked if the discharge points south and east could be diverted to one point and address the collective discharges at one point. City Manager Jeng advised it might be possible but depends on the terrain, footprint of each point, and how easy it is to route from one point to another. She explained the Torrance Airport Project is proposing taking four Peninsula Cities discharge and directing it toward the Torrance Airport 75 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -6- and retaining that volume. Councilmember Mirsch asked if there was a deadline for the grants mentioned beforehand. City Manager Jeng replied the first round of regional money for Measure W application deadline is mid-July. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. Alfred Visco commented via email that he was not familiar with the discharge issue and the presentation set forth, however, there could be some benefits for the proposed project over and above the stormwater issues. There could be a substantial amount of stormwater maintained in the reservoir, which would reduce the fire risk in the canyon. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council request the City Manager to broach the State Board to confirm if the Council proceeded with the project, would they not be required to report for the MS4 regarding the Machado Lake water district and if grant money is available. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. C.FY 2020/21 BUDGET PREPARATION DOCUMENTS FY 2019/2020 YEAR- END REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS FY 2020/2021 CONSUMER PRICE INDEX (CPI) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET. Budget Consultant, Jim Walker, gave an overview of the 2019-2020-year end projections and the March 2020 consumer price index that will be used for the 2020-2021 budget. Staff projects total General Fund Revenues through June 30, 2020 as $1,887,597, which is $390,703 lower than the amended Budget amount of $2,278,300. The decreased revenues are primarily Building & Other Permit Fees, which lowered by $346,288 and Variance, Planning & Zoning Fees, which are projected to be lower by $30,169 due to the effect of COVID-19. For General Fund Expenditures through June 30, 2020 projections are $1,868,938, which is $364,662 lower than the amended budget amount of $2,233,600. The decrease is primarily due to the following: City Administration Department projected Salary and Benefit savings associated with vacant Senior Management Analyst position; Planning & Development Department projected LA County Building Inspection savings associated with lower volume of building inspections; Law Enforcement projected savings associated with unspent Wild Life Management & Pest Control expense; and Non-Department cost savings for peninsula wide preparedness staff member. We are projecting a deficit of $26,041 before all operating transfers. Prior to this meeting the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee approved to continue to appropriate funds to CIP projects, mainly the tennis courts and ADA project for City Hall. 76 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -7- Mr. Walker continued to review the March 2020 consumer price index, which was 1.9%. That is what will be used for the COLA adjustment and other contractual budget items for the 2020-2021 budget. Last year the March CIP was 2.7%. Councilmember Black asked if there was another CIP that could be used instead of March. Mr. Walker replied that it was agreed last year to use March because the CIP for May is not released until June after the budget has been adopted. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. There was no public comment. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the item. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Black, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Councilmember Black requested item 9A be heard next because he would have to leave the meeting soon. Item 9A (out of order) 9.MATTERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS A.CONSIDER REQUEST FROM MAYOR PIEPER TO DISCUSS TIMING FOR RE-OPENING ROLLING HILLS TO THE PUBLIC. Mayor Pieper reported that City Manager Jeng provided access to conduct city business in-person by appointment. Residents can call, email, or make an appointment with staff for service. No other cities in Los Angeles County are open to the public. He has spoken to other Mayor’s in the Peninsula and they are trying to figure out when to reopen City Halls. The targeted date is May 1, 2020. He expressed concern about being the first City to reopen to the public and having negative media attention. Other cities might not be happy with their decision to proceed and may lead to unfavorable interactions. He also discussed how to staff City Hall when the doors are reopened to maintain safety and not risk losing the entire department if someone contracts COVID-19. He concluded if Rolling Hills is the first City to reopen, it would put unnecessary pressure on the City and cannot see the benefits. Councilmember Black stated City Hall is considered an essential business and should have never closed. City Hall is ideal for social distancing. From a medical viewpoint, there is no reason City 77 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -8- Hall cannot be open if common sense is used. He does not care what other cities are doing and Rolling Hills needs to show leadership. Mr. Walker commented that he has contact with JPIA and suggested that the Council consider the general liability issue. Councilmember Black replied that workers compensation would take care of the employees. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer commented that the courts are closed, and people have their Constitutional rights on hold. She noted that all the speedy trail-rights courts are closed until May 15, 2020 and it could be extended. It did not make sense for City Hall to open especially with a small staff. If someone comes in and does not respect social distance and one employee gets sick that would lead to the rest of the staff being quarantined. How would business continue? Councilmember Black argued that courthouses are a dramatically different setting than City Hall and cannot be compared. Councilmember Mirsch commented a health order is in effect until May 15th. The County is still encouraging minimal contact with the public. She does not believe there is any need not met with the way City Hall is conducting business. She has not received any complaints that services are not being provided. Councilmember Black stated that the May 15th date is applicable to non-essential businesses and City Hall is considered an essential business. He asked how many building permits have been issued since then beginning of March. PCS Director Elguira replied half a dozen permits have been issued. Councilmember Wilson commented that he does not support opening City Hall because he has not heard of anyone requesting services and not being serviced. Councilmember Black made a motion to reopen City Hall and stated that he does not care what other Mayors are doing. No second followed. Mayor Pieper notified the Council that City Manager Jeng had a plan ready if City Hall needed to be reopened on short notice. He expressed concern about the PR value when dealing with other cities and the topic would be readdressed if anything changed. Councilmember Black left the City Council meeting at 8:58pm. Item 8C (out of order) C. STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP DISCUSSION #3. 78 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -9- City Manager Jeng reported the Strategic Planning Workshop was held, in addition to regular meetings, to provide guidance on developing budget items for the next fiscal year. At the Workshop, the Council developed four priorities for the City: Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness, Utility Undergrounding, Drainage, and Sewer. Under each category is a list of budget items that support the Council’s priorities, and all are proposed for next year: Wildfire Mitigation/Emergency Preparedness 1. Block Captain Program 2. Fire Fuel Reduction in the Preserve 3. Fire Fuel Reduction in Rolling Hills 4. CWPP Development/Adoption 5. Arborist to support enforcement of Fire Fuel Abatement Ordinance Utility Undergrounding 1. Crest Road Undergrounding Cal OES grant 2. Eastfield Drive Undergrounding Cal OES grant 3. Assessment District support continuous workshops for neighborhood groups 4. Pursue grants for projects Drainage 1. Parcel based hydromodification policy development to minimize impacts to surrounding canyons and downstream parcels 2. Bend Springs capital improvement project feasibility study to include City Hall campus stormwater discharge 3. Masterplan to eliminate stormwater discharge from the City Sewer 1. Investigate extension of existing sewer mains into the City of Rolling Hills 2. Design of 8" sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road to connect with County truck line on Crenshaw Boulevard 3. Pursue grants for capital improvement projects A spreadsheet with high-level cost estimates for the budget items listed above was included. The dollar amounts are high estimates based on past experiences and industry recommendations. She was providing information for discussion and feedback. Councilmember Wilson asked if portions of the mentioned projects were in the current year’s budget and how much of an increase would this be for next year if approved. City Manager Jeng replied that $50,000.00 for the Fire Fuel reduction in the Preserve would come out of the current budget if it were approved in the next meeting. Staff could get started on a portion of the sewer project if the Council were to move forward with the design this year. A portion of the $90,000.00 would be taken out of that line item and then moved to the next fiscal year. All the other expenses get carried over to the next fiscal year. 79 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -10- Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer asked about the fire fuel reduction for properties that are adjacent to the preserve. How can money be devoted to fire fuel reduction on private property that would not be offered to other people in Rolling Hills who would like money to remove fire fuel from their land. She asked for more details for parcel based hydromodifications policy development. She inquired about $8,000.00 allocation. City Manager Jeng proclaimed this would be a path to approach those property owners if they are willing to work with the City on fuel management and make use of the investment on the Preserve. She is only trying to seek out possible options and is open to suggestions. The line item is a placeholder for now. Staff is exploring authoring policies that mandate projects look at impacts of stormwater discharge outside of their property, which would be identified as hydromodifications. The $8,000.00 was allocated for technical instruction to guide the City on future provisions for developers to follow and determine if the parameters placed on the development projects were feasible. Mr. Walker commented on Fire Fuel reduction and asked if the City reached out to the Fire Department for weed abatement. City Manager Jeng explained the Fire Department only evaluates areas 200 feet from a structure and beyond that is up to the AG Commission. The AG Commission contracted to take care of some fuel management issues on a parcel-by-parcel basis. The areas of interest do not fall under the Fire Department purview. Councilmember Wilson asked what would be constituted a gift of public funds if the City used money to fund or subsidize removal of weed abetment on private property. City Attorney Jenkins suggested to fashion a program that addressed a specific issue that could be argued as a community problem and to a greater extent, is a problem for the private property owner. Standards would have to be established and treat every similar situation the same. He advised thinking it through before committing any public funds to that venture. Generally private property owners are financially responsible for the condition of their property and the remediation of the conditions of their property. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. There was no public comment. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer moved that the City Council receive, and file item as presented. Councilmember Mirsch seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 8.NEW BUSINESS 80 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -11- A.UPDATE ON MEASURE W – SAFE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE LOCAL RETURN ALLOCATIONS. City Manager Jeng reported staff presumed local Measure W monies would come in and offset the cost of MS4 permits but that money is not going to be realized because the City was informed that the agreement has to be signed before the disbursement would be expected in August. The staff report is to inform the Council that the agreement has been forwarded to the City Attorney’s office and the City’s consultant McGowan and Associates reviewed it on the City’s behalf and comments were sent to the County. No action is needed for this item just informing the Council that staff needed to appropriate additional general funds for this year and back fill the MS4 compliance cost for the current year. She also reported that 30% of the W monies could be used toward existing programs such as paying Ms. McGowan’s fees. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. There was no public comment. Councilmember Mirsch moved that the City Council receive and file the item as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Councilmember Black seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. B.UPDATE ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY REVIEW OF THE CITY’S SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE II PROJECT. City Manager Jeng updated the Council on the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase II Project. RHCA requested permission to proceed with replacing the septic tank near the tennis courts. The Council requested the Association delay their improvements until they received confirmation on the city’s sewer feasibility study and the county accepted the study. The feasibility study remains under review by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). On April 13, 2020, Willdan Engineering reported that LACDPW expects to complete the review of the City's sewer study on the week of April 27, 2020. She reviewed the comments received from the County. Back in November 2019, staff informed the Council that there is a segment of the pipe that needed to be upgraded from the proposed 8- inch pipe to a 10-inch pipe to accommodate the additional discharge from the City. The estimated project cost, with the pipe upgrade, was approximately $1,087,000. The review comment received in early 2020 called for the methodology of estimating sewer flow to be changed from occupancy to land use/zoning requiring the proposed 10-inch pipe to be upgraded to a 12-inch pipe in three segments of the existing sewer system. Increasing the sizes in the lower segments will place the 81 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -12- sewer under design capacity. The new estimated project cost, with the proposed size increase, is approximately $1,098,000; of that $84,000.00 is for engineering cost. The next phase would be to hire an engineering company to do the design. Mayor Pieper asked when the best time is to approach an engineering company to get a cheaper rate. City Manager Jeng replied it would be in the interest of the city to construct the sewer line in the next three years. Engineering fees will remain the same due to the fact it is a different industry that has multipliers for benefits, staff, and other charges from other people. It was her belief that the savings will come from the construction side. If the economy slows down, the City might get good pricing for labor and material cost. Councilmember Wilson commented that the contingency line item is high and does not like it. She clarified the line item was an engineer’s estimate at a very high level. Mayor Pieper opened the item for public comment. There was no public comment. Councilmember Wilson moved that the City Council receive and file the item as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer Councilmember Black seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote as follows: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Pieper, Dieringer, Mirsch, and Wilson NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None. ABSENT:COUNCILMEMBERS: Black. ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. 10.MATTERS FROM STAFF NONE. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the City Council, Mayor Mirsch adjourned the meeting at 9:34p.m. The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled for Monday, May 11, 2020 beginning at 7:00p.m. via teleconference. 82 Minutes City Council Meeting 04-27-20 -13- Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Yohana Coronel, MBA City Clerk Approved, _____________________________________ Jeff Pieper Mayor 83 Agenda Item No.: 4.B Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:YOHANA CORONEL, CITY CLERK THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:PAYMENT OF BILL. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: None. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Payment of Bills 84 85 Agenda Item No.: 4.C Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE UPDATED CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: The City Council reorganize annually in late March, early April. The new Mayor reviews the City Council Committee assignments and adjust accordingly. DISCUSSION: The updated City Council Committee assignments are attached to this report for consideration and approval. Under the Category of Official Commissions/Boards, the assignments were updated to reflect the new Mayor. Under the Category of Standing City Council Committees, adjustments were made by the new Mayor giving consideration to expertise, availability, interest and opportunities for rotation. Under the category of Ad Hoc Subcommittees, adjustments were made to eliminate subcommittees that have not met over a 12 month period and add newly created subcommittees within the last 12 months. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council consider the updated City Council Committee Assignments and approve as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 20-21 Committee Assignments_DRAFT.pdf 86 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS 2020/2021 D = Delegate A = Alternate X = Representative P:\COMMITTEES\Committee Assignments\20-21 Committee Assignments Draft: Apr, 17, 2020 1.OFFICIAL COMMITTEES/BOARDS COMMITTEE LIAISON BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a.CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION D A b.LEAGUE OF CA CITIES D A c.SOUTH BAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS D d.LA SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 A D e.VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT f.SMBRC - WATERSHED ADVISORY COUNCIL (RALPH SCHMOLLER-D) g.PEN. REG. LAW ENFORCEMENT COM./PUBLIC SAFETY D D h.PENINSULA CITIES MAYORS' COMMITTEE A D i.LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE A D j.SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG)A D 2.CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES (STANDING) COMMITTEE BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a.PERSONNEL X X b.FINANCE/BUDGET/AUDIT X X c.PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON X d.EMERGENCY SERVICES/DISASTER PREPAREDNESS X X e.TENNIS CLUB LIAISON X f.CABALLEROS LIAISON X g.INSURANCE COMMITTEE (CJPIA)D A h.WOMEN'S COMMUNITY CLUB LIAISON X i.TRAFFIC COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE X j.SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING X X k.CITY/ASSOCIATION LIAISON X l.UNDERGROUND UTILITY X X 3.AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES (FYI ONLY) COMMITTEE BLACK DIERINGER MIRSCH PIEPER WILSON a.HOUSING AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE X X b.FIRE FUEL REDUCTION AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE X X c.SINGLE UTILITY POLE UNDERGROUND AD HOC SUBCOM X X 87 Agenda Item No.: 4.D Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:YOHANA CORONEL, CITY CLERK THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ROLLING HILLS 2020 RELIABILITY REPORT. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: In late April 2020, the Southern California Edison (SCE) South Bay District Manager Ryan Robbins and Government Liaison Connie Turner provided the annual circuit reliability report. DISCUSSION: SCE reported in 2019, the average duration of outage events lasted for approximately 77.9 minutes in Rolling Hills compared to 178 minutes for service area wide. In 2019, the average sustained interruption events (outage events lasting more than 5 minutes) was 1.1 for Rolling Hills compared to 1.0 for service area wide. Generally the 2019 data for all circuits serving Rolling Hills show improvements year over year since 2016. There are four circuits serving Rolling Hills: Feldspar, Silicone, Statler, and Surrey. In calendar year 2020, SCE intends to make improvements along the Silicone circuit in the northern part of the City, which includes City Hall. Also in the work plan for 2020, as a part of SCE’s wildfire mitigation plan to the California Public Utilities Commission, they will place covered conductors on all overhead wires to prevent sparks. An incident in 2018 involved a squirrel placing its feet on different cross wires causing sparks. SCE reported that covered conductors were installed in 2019 and they will continue with the installation until all overhead wires are equipped with the cover. SCE also reported that prior to COVID-19, most maintenance and construction work were performed during weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm when most people are at work. In response to the pandemic and with most people conducting business and schooling from home, SCE adjusted activities to take place on the weekends and if possible, at night for work that require interruption to power delivery. Nighttime activities are not employed in Rolling Hills as it is a bedroom community. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with receiving the report and the activities reported by SCE for 2020 for Rolling Hills will be implemented by SCE. RECOMMENDATION:88 Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Southern California Edison Rolling Hills 2020 Circuit Reliability Report. ATTACHMENTS: SCE_ReliabilityReport2019 89 Circuit Reliability Review Rolling Hills 2020 90 2 •Southern California Edison (SCE) is an Edison International company •One of the nation’s largest electric utilities •More than 130 years of history •Headquartered in Rosemead, California •Regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) •50,000 square miles of SCE service area across Central, Coastal, and Southern California •15 million residents in service territory •5 million customer accounts in 445 cities and communities Who We Are 91 Our Grid To deliver power safely, reliably and affordably, we monitor and maintain a vast electricity system. 730,000 Transformers 119,000 Miles of Transmission and Distribution Lines 4,600 Circuits 1.5 Million Poles 50,000 Square Miles 3 92 Strengthening and Modernizing the Grid •Infrastructure reliability –updating underground cables, poles, switches, and transformers •Wildfire mitigation –hardening infrastructure, bolstering situational awareness capabilities, and enhancing operational practices •Transmission –connecting renewables, installing new substations, and updating lines •Grid readiness –updating the grid for impacts from new technologies •Long-term energy policy –supporting energy storage, electric vehicles, and renewables SCE plans to spend more than $5B each year to maintain, improve, and harden its infrastructure. SCE’s investments support safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy for our customers 2019 Capital Investments 179 miles of underground cable replaced 502 miles of overhead conductor replaced for public safety 16.4k distribution poles replaced 4.3k transmission poles replaced 71 underground structure replacements 4 93 PATHWAY 2045 SCE’S vision to help California achieve a carbon neutral future Carbon neutrality is achieved through deep decarbonization of electricity, transportation and building electrification, and the use of low-carbon fuels Meeting California’s Climate Change Goals 5 94 •SCE filed its second Wildfire Mitigation Plan in February 2020 •It builds on the progress made in 2019 to reduce the risk of fire ignitions caused by utility infrastructure •SCE crews will continue to work to install hi-tech wildfire mitigation tools and technologies to make communities safer, more resilient, and to help reduce the number of Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) Addressing Wildfire Risk 6 95 •De-energizing power lines to prevent ignitions •Used during elevated fire conditions •Primarily impacts circuits in high fire risk areas •Use of multiple methods to notify people in affected areas before, during and after a de-energization event Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) 7 4-7 DAYS AHEAD 3 DAYS AHEAD 2 DAYS AHEAD 1 DAY AHEAD POWER SHUTOFF POWER RESTORATION PLANNING AND MONITORING OUTAGE *Erratic or sudden onset of conditions may impact our ability to provide advanced notice to customers. Forecast Weather & Fire Conditions SCE Incident Management Team on Alert County Operational Areas informed of potential activation SCE Incident Management Team Activated 1st Notification PSPS Possible sent to agencies and customers 2nd Notification PSPS Possible 3rd Notification Power Shutoff 4th Notification Power Restored After Inspection 96 Reliability Overview 8 97 What is Reliability? •In simplest terms: Having dependable electricity when you need it. •Outages: •Maintenance outages (aka planned outages) •Repair outages (aka unplanned outages) •Sustained Outage = An outage lasting > 5 minutes •Momentary Outage = An outage lasting ≤ 5 minutes 9 Major Event Day (MED) : A day in which the daily system SAIDI exceeds a threshold value. For the purposes of calculating daily system SAIDI, any interruption that spans multiple calendar days is accrued to the day on which the interruption began. Statisticall y, days having a daily system SAIDI greater than a threshold value are days on which the energy delivery system experienced stresses beyond th at normally expected (such as severe weather). Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) : An operational protocol that SCE implements under extreme weather conditions in order to minimize the threat of wildfires and keep communities safe from potentially dangerous situations. These types of sustained outages ar e temporary and usually involve situations where high fire areas are experiencing adverse weather or public safety is at risk. 98 How Do We Measure Reliability? SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI CAIDI 10 99 CityList1Communities in the SOUTH BAY District LOS ANGELES MANHATTAN BEACH VIEW PARK-WINDSOR HILLS WEST ATHENS WESTMONT PALOS VERDES ESTATES RANCHO PALOS VERDES DEL AIRE EL SEGUNDO GARDENA HAWTHORNE HERMOSA BEACH INGLEWOOD ALONDRA PARK REDONDO BEACH ROLLING HILLS ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TORRANCE LADERA HEIGHTS LAWNDALE LENNOX LOMITA 11 100 *”Exclusions” are days which utilities are allowed to remove from their metrics because the outages on those days were caused by a severe acts of nature. **In the columns showing “Rank,” lower numbers indicate poorer performance. 12 101 CircuitList1Overview of Rolling Hills There are 4 circuits that serve Rolling Hills 1 Circuit Type Customers Circuit Type Customers Circuit Type Customers Circuit Type Customers FELDSPAR(16KV)1,477 --- SILICONE(16KV)2,254 --- STATLER(16KV)1,722 --- SURREY(4.16KV)91 --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Grand Total 5,544 13 102 BarChart SCE SYSTEMWIDE **Data is as of 02/14/2020, data can be slightly different due to outage data validation process Rolling Hills Reliability History of Circuits Serving Rolling Hills (No Exclusions) **“Exclusions” are days which utilities are allowed to remove from their metrics because the outages on those days were caused by acts of nature. 460.4 154.8 156.1 77.9 134.5 139.7 136.8 178.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 2016 2017 2018 2019 SAIDI (average minutes of sustained interruptions) 2.7 1.3 1.8 1.11.1 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 SAIFI (average frequency of sustained interruptions) 1.9 0.3 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 MAIFI (average frequency of momentary interruptions) 14 103 SAIDIChart SAIDI = the cumulative amount of time the average customer is interrupted by “sustained” outages each year. Causes of Repair Outages in Rolling Hills 2019 Equipment Failure 72.7% Operation 8.9% Other 3.0% Vegetation /Animal 1.4% Weather /Fire /Earthquake 14.1% PSPS 0.0% Contributions to SAIDI by Outage Cause 3rd Party Equipment Failure Operation Other Vegetation /Animal Weather /Fire /Earthquake PSPS Equipment Failure e.g., in-service failure of transformer, switch, or conductors Vegetation/Animal e.g., tree branch, rodent, or bird causing a short circuit between conductors Other e.g., patrolled but no cause found, PSPS Operations e.g., urgent maintenance w/o 3-day notice 3rd Party e.g., balloon, car hit pole, dig-in PSPS e.g., Public Safety Power Shutoff 15 104 SAIFIChart SAIFI = the number of times the average customer is interrupted by “sustained” outages each year Causes of Repair Outages in Rolling Hills 2019 Equipment Failure 75.3% Operation 4.1% Other 2.6% Vegetation /Animal 1.0% Weather /Fire /Earthquake 17.0%PSPS 0.0% Contributions to SAIFI by Outage Cause 3rd Party Equipment Failure Operation Other Vegetation /Animal Weather /Fire /Earthquake PSPS Equipment Failure e.g., in-service failure of transformer, switch, or conductors Vegetation/Animal e.g., tree branch, rodent, or bird causing a short circuit between conductors Other e.g., patrolled but no cause found Operations e.g., urgent maintenance w/o 3 -day notice 3rd Party e.g., balloon, car hit pole, dig-in PSPS e.g., Public Safety Power Shutoff 16 105 17 106 18 107 Back-up Slides Reliability Histories of Circuits Serving Rolling Hills Updated through Dec 2019 19 108 CitySummary SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI 460.4 2.7 1.9 154.8 1.3 0.3 156.1 1.8 1.6 16.9 0.4 -56.8 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 3.8 0.0 0.6 77.9 1.1 2.2 3rd Party ------10%31%53%--------------- Equipment Failure 32%41%26%62%56%91%79%56%26%69%84%-78%74%61%64%4%-8%28%48%73%75%48% Operation 14%8%-5%6%-2%0%-18%9%-1%1%----92%72%-9%4%- Other 21%32%27%0%0%-6%4%20%---4%1%27%36%96%100%--52%3%3%45% Vegetation/Animal 0%0%29%22%34%9%4%10%2%---2%2%-------1%1%- Weather/Fire/Earthquake 33%19%18%10%3%----13%7%-15%23%12%------14%17%7% PSPS ------------------------ SCE SYSTEMWIDE 134.5 1.1 1.6 139.7 1.2 1.8 136.8 0.9 1.4 28.1 0.3 0.4 18.9 0.2 0.4 31.8 0.2 0.3 99.3 0.3 0.3 178.0 1.0 1.4 2nd Qtr 2019 3rd Qtr 2019 4 Circuits Serving Rolling Hills -- Total Customers: 5,544 Average Reliability of 4 Circuits Serving Rolling Hills 4th Qtr 2019 20192016201720181st Qtr 2019 Notes: No outages are excluded from the metrics. Outage Causes: Other: e.g., patrolled but no cause could be found Operations: e.g., urgent maintenance w/o 3-day notice to customers 3rd Party: e.g., balloons, car hit pole, dig-in Vegetation/Animal: e.g., tree branch, rodent, or bird causing short circuit across conductors PSPS: e.g., Public Safety Power Shutoff SAIDI (minutes) = the cumulative amount of time the average customer is interrupted by “sustained” (longer than 5 minutes) ou tages. SAIFI (interruptions) = the number of times the average customer is interrupted by “sustained” outages. MAIFI (interruptions) = the number of times the average customer is interrupted by “momentary " (lasting 5 minutes or less) outages. 20 109 CircuitHistory1 SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI SAIDI SAIFI MAIFI FELDSPAR(16KV) - Customers: 1,477 172.6 1.1 2.0 186.9 1.3 0.4 19.7 0.1 -45.1 1.1 -120.4 1.1 ----12.2 0.0 1.0 177.7 2.1 1.0 3rd Party ------------------------ Equipment Failure 25%3%-92%97%100%28%9%-95%97%-96%96%------100%89%96%100% Operation 4%1%-8%3%-3%3%----0%0%----100%100%-7%1%- Other ------54%29%---------------- Vegetation/Animal --50%---14%59%----3%4%-------2%2%- Weather/Fire/Earthquake 72%96%50%------5%3%----------1%1%- PSPS ------------------------ SILICONE(16KV) - Customers: 2,254 514.2 4.3 1.9 209.8 2.0 0.4 305.4 3.1 3.0 2.0 0.0 -33.4 0.6 1.9 ------35.4 0.6 1.9 3rd Party ------5%20%67%--------------- Equipment Failure 57%54%57%59%44%100%94%80%33%---100%100%100%------94%95%100% Operation 3%3%-3%6%-1%0%-100%100%----------6%5%- Other 40%43%43%0%0%------------------- Vegetation/Animal 0%0%-38%50%------------------- Weather/Fire/Earthquake ------------------------ PSPS ------------------------ STATLER(16KV) - Customers: 1,722 620.9 1.5 1.9 7.0 0.1 0.1 80.3 1.8 1.1 7.9 0.1 -35.5 0.5 1.6 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.8 0.0 1.0 46.4 0.7 3.6 3rd Party ------36%57%---------------- Equipment Failure 0%1%-13%6%-15%1%-12%5%----64%4%-52%50%-6%2%- Operation 32%36%-87%94%-4%1%-88%95%-1%2%----48%50%-18%11%- Other 0%1%24%---25%11%92%---20%3%69%36%96%100%--100%16%13%87% Vegetation/Animal --58%--100%20%30%8%--------------- Weather/Fire/Earthquake 67%63%18%---------79%96%31%------61%74%13% PSPS ------------------------ SURREY(4.16KV) - Customers: 91 91.1 1.0 2.0 917.9 3.0 1.0 ---104.4 2.0 -9.6 0.1 ------1.0 114.0 2.1 1.0 3rd Party ------------------------ Equipment Failure ---13%33%100%---6%50%---------100%5%48%100% Operation ------------100%100%-------8%4%- Other ------------------------ Vegetation/Animal --50%--------------------- Weather/Fire/Earthquake 100%100%50%87%67%----94%50%----------86%48%- PSPS ------------------------ Reliability Histories for Individual Circuits Serving Rolling Hills - 1 of 1 2016 2017 2018 1st Qtr 2019 2nd Qtr 2019 3rd Qtr 2019 4th Qtr 2019 2019 21 110 Agenda Item No.: 5.A Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 400 SQUARE-FOOT LAP SWIMMING POOL WITH SPA IN THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission at their May 1, 2020 special meeting adopted Resolution No. 2020-03 granting a Variance request approval to construct a 400 square-foot lap swimming pool with spa in the front yard of an existing residence located at 52 Portuguese Bend Road. Due to the irregular shape of the subject lot and geometry of Portuguese Bend Road, the backyard of the parcel functions as the main entrance to the property. The front façade of the existing residence faces the back courtyard. The residence's front entry, garage doors and driveway that leads up to the main residence are located in the rear court yard which functions as the receiving area on the parcel. The proposed pool and spa, to be located in the front yard, are technically located behind the existing residence however the back of the residence faces the front yard. DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not seen from the surrounding streets or canyons. The proposed pool elevation is above the Portuguese Bend Road elevation and several hundred feet away from adjacent properties. The proposed project will result in minimal lot disturbance due to the lot being already developed with a residence, an attached garage, barn and hardscape. Planning Commission Review The field trip occurred on different days to comply with the social distancing requirements currently in effect throughout LA County. Additional discussions took place during the Special Public Meeting held on the morning of May 1, 2020. Zoning, Land Size and Existing Conditions The lot is an irregularly shaped parcel located in RAS-2 zone. The net lot area is 74,379 square feet,111 which is slightly below the requirements of RAS-2 which requires a minimum net lot area of 87,120 square feet. The lot is developed with a 3,960 square-foot residence with a 940 square-foot attached garage. The house is currently under renovation. The existing swimming pool, located in the rear yard, will be demolished and converted into a water fountain. The existing pool equipment area located on north side the of the existing residence will remain. There is an existing 450 square-foot barn located at the northwest corner of the parcel near the entrance. Neighbor Concerns A phone call was received from a neighbor, Mrs. Luna, inquiring if other variance requests have been requested by the owner. A letter was later submitted informing the Planning Department that Mrs. Luna opposed the proposed project due to potential view impact and that a public notice was not received for the proposed Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was subsequently rescheduled to May 1, 2020 to meet the public noticing requirements. On the day of the field trip, Mrs. Luna and her son met with staff, the owner's representative and Chair Chelf to survey the area and take pictures. After the field trip, Mrs. Luna sent an email informing the City that she no longer objects to the proposed project and variance request due to the project not having any view impact from her property. Mrs. Luna's property is located to the rear of the subject property at a much higher elevation than the pool pad. The proposed pool will not be visible from her property and her view of the Pacific Ocean will not be impacted. Past Approval for the Property On October 17, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 930, for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a garage addition, covered porches, and trellis. Municipal Code Compliance Grading Construction activities will include pool excavation of 220 cubic yards overall. The proposed pool depth is six feet. Lot Coverage Total net lot coverage is 17,287 square feet or 23.2% and maximum allowed is 35%. Total structural coverage is 7,101 square feet or 9.5% and maximum allowed is 20%. Disturbance The proposed project will result in 54.41% or 40,475 square feet of overall disturbed area. Exceptions to the maximum 40% disturbance is permitted up to 60% of the net lot area, provided that at no point the slopes resulting from the grading are not greater than 3:1, or three units horizontal to one unit vertical, RHMC Sect. 17.16.070.B.A.1. Rolling Hills Community Association Review Rolling Hills Community Association approved the proposed project on February 19, 2020. Environmental Review The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project site is developed with single family residence, attached garage, hardscape and barn. There is no existing sensitive habitat area in or around the area of the proposed pool site. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required Findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings:112 That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution_2020-03_52_Portuguese_Bend_Road_ZC_20-03.pdf 52 Portuguese Bend Road Site Plan.pdf 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PHOTOS.pdf 113 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 400 SQUARE-FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, (LOT 4-FT-RH), (WACHS). ZONING CASE NO. 20-03. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Barton Wachs with respect to real property located at 52 Portuguese Bend Road, (Lot 4-FT-RH), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Variance for the construction of a new swimming pool and spa proposed in the front yard of the property (pursuant to City’s Zoning Ordinance, no structures are permitted in front of the leading edge of the residence). There is an existing pool located in the rear of the property that will be demolished and converted into a water fountain. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed project during on-site field trips and Special Public Meeting held on May 1, 2020. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail, by phone and email. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 with a net lot area of 1.7 acres or 74,379 square feet. The existing property is currently developed with a 3,690 square- foot residence currently being renovated with an existing 940 square foot attached garage, and a 450 square foot barn. There is also an existing swimming pool located on the rear of the property which will be partially filled and converted into a water fountain. The new proposed project enables a lap swimming pool with an infinity edge and spa. Section 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Minimal grading will occur on the parcel relating to the proposed pool and spa project. In addition, the proposed location of the pool and spa is within the disturbed area of the subject parcel. No sensitive habitat will be impacted by the proposed project. Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same 114 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 2 vicinity or zone. In proposing to construct a new 400 square-foot pool and spa in the front yard area, a Variance is required to grant relief from the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 17.16.200.G.1. (no structures shall be located in the front yard). With respect to the aforementioned request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property that do not apply generally to the other properties in that the frontage of the property covers majority of the lot’s perimeter making the front yard encompass majority of the useable yard area. Due to the irregular shape of the subject lot and geometry of Portuguese Bend Road, the backyard of the parcel functions as the main entrance to the property. The front façade of the existing residence faces the back courtyard. The garage doors and driveway that leads up to the main structure are located in the rear court yard which functions as the receiving area on the parcel. The proposed pool and spa, to be located in the front yard, are technically located behind the existing residence; the back of the residence faces the front yard. This special circumstance makes it difficult for the owner to enjoy the same rights possessed by other property owners in the City. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of their front yard with a pool for lap swimming and spa. The proposed location of the new pool and spa is not visually intrusive to its neighbors and is not visible from the road easement which is located at a lower elevation. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located in that the proposed new pool and spa would not be visible from the adjoining street or private properties and therefore are not expected to result in any visual or privacy impacts. The proposed project must comply with the LA County Building Code. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed new construction of the pool and spa will be orderly, attractive, and will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject proposed structures are in the front of the property and will not impact the existing residence, but will enhance the use of the existing structures and previously approved residential addition. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, constructed in the ground with sufficient open space 115 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 3 between surrounding structures. The proposed project is located on an existing developed lot and is not visible from abutting parcels. F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. The proposed project will comply with the disposal of construction and debris requirements. G. Allowing the construction of the proposed pool and spa does not grant special privilege to the applicant given that the front yard coverage covers most of the lot due to the geometry of Portuguese Bend Road affecting this particular site. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance in Zoning Case No. 20-03 the construction of a new 400 square foot swimming pool and spa for relocation in the front yard, subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance Permit approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee’s determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at 116 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 4 the Applicant’s request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated January 29, 2020, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans, including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and including conformance with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City’s Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. D. The total overall lot coverage of the net lot area shall not exceed 17,287 square feet or 23.2% E. The total structural coverage of the net lot shall not exceed 7,101 square feet or 9.5%. F. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 40,475 square feet or 54.41% (of net lot area). G. A minimum of five-foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the pool and decking. H. Per LA County Building Code, a pool barrier and/or fencing shall be required for the pool. 117 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 5 I. A drainage plan, as required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. J. The existing pool equipment area shall be fully enclosed by a wall with the opening to the interior of the property, facing the property residence and shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. K. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. L. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. During construction, to the maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car- pool into the City. M. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. N. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP’s) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management and comply with the City’s Low Impact development Ordinance (LID), if applicable. O. A minimum of 65% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City. P. All graded areas shall be landscaped. In addition, the swimming pool, spa and pool equipment area shall be screened from the neighbors and a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If landscaping of 500 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow into a hedge but be offset and shall not exceed the roof ridgeline. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) Architectural Review Committee. 118 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 6 R. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIR E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. S. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. T. Prior to finaling of the project an “as graded” and an “as constructed” plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the “as built/as graded” plan. Hardcopy and electronic copy of “as built” plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of Final Certificate of Occupancy. U. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1st DAY OF MAY 2020. _______________________________ BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ____________________________ YOHANA CORONEL, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 119 Reso. 2020-03 52 Portuguese Bend Road 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2020-03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 400 SQUARE-FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND SPA IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 4-FT-RH) (WACHS). ZONING CASE NO. 2020-03. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 1, 2020, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. _______________________________________________ CITY CLERK 120 121 52 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD PROPOSED LAP POOL/SPA* LOCATION (*not to scale) 122 123 Agenda Item No.: 7.A Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:MEREDITH ELGUIRA, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN ENHANCED PROPOSAL FROM PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE FUEL ABATEMENT IN THE PRESERVE IN THE AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITY BORDER. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: In October 14, 2019, the City Council approved an agreement with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Land Conservancy) for fire fuel removal for $34,200. Of the total amount, $27,000 was for 2 acres of Acacia removal within the northeastern portion of the Portuguese Bend Reserve along the Rim Trail; and $7,200 was for removing 16 acres of invasive mustard plant around the Grapevine Trail. This work has been completed by the Land Conservancy in early March 2020. The agreement also included an additional $12,000 per year for three years for springtime Mustard mowing and monitoring of Acacia to prevent regrowth. The Land Conservancy commenced this work on April 20, 2020. At the February 10, 2020 City Council meeting, Land Conservancy staff provide a presentation of the fire fuel removal work conducted between November 2019 and February 2020. At that meeting, the City Council requested another proposal for additional fire fuel removal work in the Preserve in areas closer to the City border. At the April 27, 2020 City Council meeting, the Conservancy presented their proposed second round of fire fuel abatement work addressing the City Council's request. Consequently, the City Council requested a cost estimate to perform Mustard plant eradication work similar to the previous round and removal/limbing up of pine trees. DISCUSSION: In response to the City Council's request to provide a cost estimate for mustard removal maintenance, the Conservancy provided a revised scope of work and budget on May 6, 2020. The revised proposal also outlines potential areas for the additional work, see attachment. The areas identified in Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting Rolling Hills between Portuguese Canyon and Klondike Canyon. In total, 15 acres are proposed for fuel load reduction in the Preserve. This work can be completed in 5-7 weeks by simultaneously contracting with multiple companies for Acacia removal and dry brush mowing in order to complete this work in a timely manner during fire season. The 124 Conservancy's revised budget is a one-time fee of $69,250 for the proposed work and annual cost of $20,800 to mow mustard plants and monitor/remove Acacia trees. Fuel Load Reduction Budget Site Acres Work Days*Budget Acacia Removal w/pine removal 1 14 $47,250 Mowing 14 30 $22,000 One-time Project Total 15 37 $69,250 Annual Mowing and Acacia Monitoring/Removal Project 15 34 $20,800 The Land Conservancy discussed with the City Council in October 2019 the strategy to prevent Mustard regrowth. The first step is to continuously remove the plan prior to seed drop. This removal should occur for a period of three to five years. Following seed management, replanting the areas with native species would further prevent re-growth. The Land Conservancy also provided an estimate of $30,000 for planting and maintaining one acre of cactus restoration project over a 5 year period for consideration. FISCAL IMPACT: The Acacia and Mustard plan removal proposed by the Land Conservancy for fire season will cost approximately $69,250 one time fee and $20,800 annual maintenance fee. In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, $300,000 is budgeted for the Tennis Courts ADA improvements. Based on discussions with the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA), and the logistics of implementing the ADA improvements with the amenities proposed by the RHCA at the tennis courts, the project won't be ready for construction until next fiscal year. If the proposed fire fuel removal is approved by Council, the budget allocated for the Tennis Courts ADA Improvement project can be used to fund the work. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the Land Conservancy's proposal for fire fuel removal in the Preserve; direct staff to execute an agreement with the Land Conservancy; and fund the work using monies set aside for capital improvements for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 ATTACHMENTS: PVPLC Reducing Fuel Load Project RH 2020-Update.docx RH_Map_1.pdf RH_Map_2.pdf 125 Proposal to the City of Rolling Hills Fuel Load Reduction in 2020 Submitted by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy U p d a t e d M a y 6 , 2 0 2 0 The Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (Conservancy) is intimately aware of the fire concerns on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and has discussed measures to reduce fire risk with the four peninsula cities. Conservancy staff members continue to work with City of Rolling Hills staff to implement fuel modification work as required by County Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures as part of landowner responsibilities for fuel modification near adjacent homes. Additionally, the Conservancy clears over 90 acres of weeds in restoration sites within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and clears 30+ miles of trails annually. This weeding approach is very specialized and must be accomplished while complying with the NCCP/HCP implementation guidelines and respecting the natural resources on the preserve. We understand that the city desires to continue to prioritize efforts to reduce fuel load in Preserve areas, and the Conservancy understands that vegetation exists beyond current fuel mod zones that pose fire threats. Therefore, the Conservancy is offering technical expertise to aid the City and augment city staff in the effort to continue reduce fuel load vegetation by targeting the removal of invasive plants such as Acacia and Mustard and other non-native plants, which in turn improves habitat for local wildlife, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, the cactus wren, a state species of concern and the federally endangered Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. This proposal outlines the potential areas for this extra 2020 work. The areas identified in Portuguese Bend Reserve include the areas abutting Rolling Hills between Portuguese Canyon and Klondike Canyon. In total, 15 acres are proposed for fuel load reduction in the Preserve. This work can be completed in 5-7 weeks by simultaneously contracting with multiple companies for Acacia removal and dry brush mowing in order to complete this work in a timely manner during fire season. For these additional efforts, the Conservancy requests a one-time grant from the city up to $69,250 for the proposed work outlined herein.The Conservancy understands the city’s timing considerations and would be prepared to begin the work as soon as funding is made available. The Conservancy has identified the priority removal of tall Acacia shrubs due to their combustible nature (Acacia shrub contain an estimated 90% dry plant matter and volatile resins) 126 and their prevalence throughout the Preserve and border areas. The locations for the proposed Acacia removal were chosen due to prior fires occurring in those areas, proximity to homes and risk to the community as well as the ecological benefits of invasive plant removal. Fire agencies agree that Acacia is a highly flammable plant and that it should be removed wherever possible. It was included as a high-hazard plant in the L.A. County Fire Department’s recently published “Ready! Set! Go!” pamphlet. This proposal also includes the removal of other non- native shrubs and trees like Chinese Pistache and Myoporum as well as the limbing up of Pine trees. Mustard when dry, continues to be a high fire risk species. The continued expansion of mowing areas is also included in this proposal. The Conservancy, as Habitat Managers for the Preserve, has qualified experts on staff with the experience required to oversee the work to be performed and will assure the correct and safe removal of the invasive plants using the best techniques at the most efficient cost. The results of this work will be shared with the City provided at the conclusion of the work performed. Where possible and with simpler tasks, volunteers will be deployed to augment the work volume and control costs. In ongoing maintenance activities, the Conservancy will create internship and volunteer opportunities for invasive plant management to keep the Acacia from re-invading the areas and to assist in monitoring activities. In this way, additional valuable learning opportunities will be made available to local youth. As projects are completed and conditions are assessed, restoration in these locations may be appropriate and funding may be pursued, since this proposal does not include replanting in the Acacia removal sites. Acacia Removal Approximately 1 acre The Acacia removal sites are situated throughout the northern portion of Portuguese Bend Reserve along the border with the city of Rolling Hills. A fire occurred at this location in 2009 burning approximately 230 acres. Much of the vegetation was burned, including the non-native Acacia, which has since begun to grow back from stump sprouting and seed germination. It is recommended that crews enter the area on foot as possible and remove shrubs with chainsaws and lighter equipment can be brought in via the Fire Station Trail or Ishibashi Trail as needed. Acacia should be chipped in designated areas and treated to prevent regrowth. Acacia stumps will need to be treated to prohibit any regrowth and the site will be monitored for seed germination and removal. The Acacia throughout this area totals approximately 1 acre. This site is known habitat of the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren, a state species of concern. 127 128 Mowing Areas There are a few large stands of invasive mustard in Portuguese Bend that are now dry and can be mowed if access is possible. These sites were historically farmed and were disked in subsequent years, so the loose soils have provided a disturbance regime which is particularly favorable to mustard and non-native grasses and weeds. In response to community concern about the vast expanse of dry mustard growth at Portuguese Bend Reserve, the Conservancy will oversee mowing throughout 14 acres. 129 130 Budget The budget reflects a typical detailed tree and shrub removal project within the preserve with minimal disturbance to native habitat and to the surrounding vegetation, following NCCP/HCP protocols. Careful non-native tree removals proposed in this project, increase the habitat value for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher and cactus wren, a state species of concern, as well as other native species while providing public benefit. These costs reflect the estimated time it would take the contractors to complete the project using hand tools and machinery to either chip tree material or haul plant material offsite, stump treat the cut Acacia to prevent regrowth, and oversight and bird monitoring by Conservancy biologists to assure that best management practices are implemented (ie. minimization and avoidance measures such as nesting bird surveys are required by the NCCP/HCP). 131 These costs are based on best estimates provided by contractors for day rates to remove the 1 acre of Acacia targeted for removal since the exact number of labor hours required to achieve the project are speculated. If the projects are completed under budget, the Acacia removal areas will be expanded to appropriately areas which generate the most impact, with approval from the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. The cost for mowing mustard is also a day rate that includes Conservancy staff time and cost to provide mechanical equipment to execute the 14-acre mustard removal work. If any cost savings are possible, an expanded area will create a bigger impact to the fuel load on the peninsula and concurrently increase habitat on the preserve. Fuel Load Reduction Budget Site Acres Work Days* Budget Acacia Removal w/pine removal 1 14 $47,250 Mowing 14 30 $22,000 One-time Project Total 15 37 $69,250 Annual Mowing and Acacia Monitoring/Removal Project 15 34 $20,800 Other Project Considerations This project is a worthwhile investment into the long-term benefit of the communities adjacent to the open space and wildlife within. While more costly per acre to implement new, labor-intensive work than annual fuel modification weed whacking efforts, removing Acacia and other non-native trees is a positive, visible impact to the landscape and a one-time project cost to the City in these target areas. This is unlike areas of mustard which, while needed to reduce fire threat, require annual treatment and ongoing maintenance costs. To help ensure that this investment is successful, the Conservancy recommends annual monitoring of areas to prevent regrowth. This project strategy is supported by the Fire Department, which has identified Acacia removal as a priority effort to reduce fire fuel load in the Preserve. This project is also responding to the nearby community requests to respond to nuisance Acacia and mustard near homes on the Preserve border. Community Partnerships As part of the Conservancy’s collaborative approach, we partner with various organizations to complete projects and provide various benefits to the community. If the timing and 132 logistics are appropriate, we would work with some of our partner organizations to add to the costs savings. We work with the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens which accept fresh Acacia greenery for the enhancement of their animal’s physical and mental health. We will save many of the straight long branches from the Acacia tree for delineation of trails and to provide ground snags for lizards and insects. We also have a partnership with the local schools that offer woodworking classes for instructional teaching. Lastly, if the material does not contain seeds, w e will use the chipped wood as a mulch in fuel modification zones to keep weeds down into the future. The Conservancy will also engage the local colleges with applicable internships which allow students to gain a better understanding of the natural world, resource management and gain experience to prepare to enter the workforce. In 2019 to date, the Conservancy has received over 1000 hours of intern assistance with projects, and counting. By engaging these students who span from across the globe, we are creating a lasting experience and leaving a lasting impression of the great natural habitat that exists on the peninsula. Potential for Restoration and Supplemental Work As these projects are completed, the cleared land can provide opportunity for habitat restoration and enhancement. A species that is potentially applicable to many of the local habitat types of Palos Verdes, is our local cactus. While no plant is fireproof, there are certain characteristics which make some plants more resistive to fire, such as cactus. Where applicable, cactus can be planted and maintained until establishment, if supplemental funding is available. Mature cactus holds a mutual relationship with the cactus wren, a state species of concern, since the cacti needles protect young nestlings from predators, providing the best habitat. To make a larger impact, the Conservancy typically plants mature cactus that is appropriate for immediate nesting, giving us more value per dollar spent. The approximate cost for planting and maintaining a 1 acre cactus restoration project over a 5 year span is approximately $30,000, and the Conservancy would be pleased to provide a restoration plan for lands along the Rolling Hills border of the Preserve for the benefit of community and wildlife. 133 134 135 Agenda Item No.: 7.B Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ACCEPT THE SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE II AS COMPLETE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE 8" SEWER MAIN ALONG PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD/ROLLING HILLS ROAD . DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: The Sewer Feasibility Study is comprised of two phases. The first phase of the study analyzed three possible pipe alignments. The second phase analyzed the preferred alignment to achieve Will Serve Letters from the LA County Sanitation District (LACSD). The preferred alignment is located north of Portuguese Bend Road to Rolling Hills Road and connects to an existing sewer main located in Rolling Hills Estates along Rolling Hills Road. The first Will Serve Letter will allow the City to discharge sewage from the City Hall Campus and the Tennis Courts. The second Will Serve Letter will allow the City to discharge sewage from 235 single family homes located within the City boundary. Both Will Serve Letters were granted by LACSD between November and December 2019. Phase II of the study was reviewed and approved by the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Torrance and LACSD and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works on May 6, 2020. DISCUSSION: Willdan Engineering was engaged for the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase I and Phase II. The Phase II contract was approved by the City Council at the May 13, 2019 meeting. Staff provided an update to the study on November 25, 2019 when the study was substantially completed and the first Will Serve Letter was granted by LACSD. Staff provided another update to Phase II of the study on January 27, 2020 and reported that the second Will Serve Letter was granted on December 5, 2019. On January 27, 2020, the City Council also considered a request from the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) to replace the existing septic tank serving the restroom at the Main Gate for approximately $75,000. The new septic tank is expected to also serve the proposed restroom and sink at the tennis courts as a part of RHCA's amenities improvement project. The City Council decided to hold off on the response to RHCA's request until the Sewer Feasibility Study is approved by the Los Angeles 136 County Department of Public Works. At the same meeting, the City Council engaged an architectural and engineering firm to prepare design plans for City Hall to bring the facility into compliance with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes. The upgrade of the existing restrooms at City Hall may necessitate the upgrade to the septic tank serving City Hall. Staff provided another update to the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase II at the April 27, 2020 City Council meeting and reported the the final engineer's estimate includes $85,000 for design and $1M for construction for a total project cost of approximately $1.1M. Considering the potential need to upgrade two septic tanks to forward improvements planned at the tennis courts, the RHCA Main Gate house and City Hall, the cost to replace septic tanks can be used for the design and construction of the 8" sewer main. The main line will provide for expansions at the City Hall campus but more importantly the ability to accept discharge from the residents along Portuguese Bend Road as parcels redevelop over time. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to prepare the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase I was estimated to be $28,926. The actual cost of Phase I study was $11,391. The cost to prepare the Sewer Feasibility Phase II and to achieve two Will Serve Letters from the LACSD was estimated to be $49,955. Actual expenditure for Phase II as of May 7, 2020 was approximately $30,000. The remaining budget of $17,535 from Phase I will be applied to Phase II, bringing the actual total cost of the study for Phase I and Phase II to $41,391 versus the budgeted amount of $78,881. If the City Council approves the recommendation to move forward with engineering design of the 8" sewer main, the unused budget ($78,881 - $41,391) of $37,490 in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 can be carried forward to Fiscal Year 2020-2021 to fund engineering design. Engineering design of the 8" sewer main is estimated to be $85,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accepts the Sewer Feasibility Study Phase II as complete and direct staff to procure engineering services to proceed with design of the 8" sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road. ATTACHMENTS: RH Sewer Area Study 20191016-Updated 20191219-Updated 20200504-Complete_v2.pdf 137 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SEWER AREA STUDY INCLUDING CITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, and UPSTREAM PROPERTIES PHASE II LACDPW #ESTU2019000732 LACDPW #PC12523AS Prepared Under the Supervision of Tyrone Peter, P.E. R.C.E. No. 81888 Willdan Engineering 2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 300 Anaheim, California 92806 (714) 940-6300 May 2020 138 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Sewer Areas…………………………………………………………………………………... 2 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Sewer Pipe Capacity Analysis…………………………………………………………….. 5 Flow Coefficients…………………………………………………………………………….. 6 Flow Generation Analysis………………………………………………………………….. 7 Results……………………………………………………………………………………….... 8 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………... 9 Appendices A San. Dist. of LA County Boundary Map and Will Serve Letters B Sewer Area Study Exhibits-Existing and Proposed C Sewer Analysis Area of Upstream Parcels D LACDPW Maintenance District Information E As-Built Plans F Subarea Areas, Zoning and Land Use Information G LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy H LACDPW Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies I San. Dist. Of LA County Table 1-Loadings for Each Class of Land Use J-1 Sewer Capacity and Design Analysis – Existing Conditions J-2 Sewer Capacity and Design Analysis – Proposed Conditions K-1 Design Capacity Calculations – Existing Conditions K-2 Design Capacity Calculations – Proposed Conditions K-3 d/D and Velocity Calculations – Existing Conditions K-4 d/D and Velocity Calculations – Proposed Conditions L City Hall and Tennis Court Site Parcel Information M Preliminary Construction Concept Plans N 1st Submittal Comments from City of Rolling Hills and Responses O 1st Submittal Comments from City of Rolling Hills Estates and Responses P 1st Submittal Comments from City of Torrance and Responses Q 1st Submittal Comments from LACDPW 139 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rolling Hills, CA (“City”) has retained Willdan Engineering to conduct research and analysis of the existing sanitary sewer lines in Rolling Hills Road between Palos Verdes Drive North and Crenshaw Boulevard (See Appendix B). Properties within the City upstream of this sewer are not currently served by sanitary sewer lines. This study analyzes the existing sewer system within Rolling Hills Road for the existing and proposed conditions. The existing condition analysis determines properties currently served by the sewer and the flow condition of the pipes. The proposed condition extends the sewer system south to just beyond the intersection of Rolling Hills Road and Palos Verdes Drive North to serve the “Project Area” which is the City of Rolling Hills City Hall, the City of Rolling Hills Tennis Court Site and, in the future, the properties upstream. Note that Rolling Hills Road becomes Portuguese Bend Road south of Palos Verdes Drive North. The flow generated by the Project Area properties is added to the existing system and the flow condition of the pipes is analyzed to determine the impact to the system and determine any required improvements to the existing system. The previously completed Phase I feasibility study completed for the City reviewed three alternative pipeline routes with related costs and their respective pros and cons for each. Evaluation of the alternatives ruled out one due to needed upgrades of an existing lift (pump) station, and another due to accessibility for maintenance and impacts to traffic flow during construction and the annual maintenance of the pipe in that alignment. The remaining alternative is the one being studied in this report, extending the gravity flow sewer located in Rolling Hills Road approximately 1,200 feet south to Palos Verdes Drive North. See also Appendix P, Comment #2 and its’ response. The Project Area and the sewershed downstream are within Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County District (San District) No. 5 (See Appendix A). 140 2 SEWER AREAS Existing Sewer Area – See Appendix B The sewer currently serves parcels located north of Palos Verdes Drive North generally along Rolling Hills Road. The parcels served are within the City of Rolling Hills Estates, the City of Torrance, and Los Angeles County. The existing sewer terminates approximately 1,200 feet north of Palos Verdes Drive North, within the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The termination point is shown as MH 201 on the exhibit. From the termination point, the sewer flows north in the City of Rolling Hills Estates for approximately 2,600 feet, and then approximately 800 feet within the City of Torrance where it connects to the Palos Verdes North Slope Relief Trunk Sewer Sec 1B CSD No. 5 in Crenshaw Boulevard. The area south of MH 201 includes parcels adjacent to Rolling Hills Road that convey to a sewer that conveys east in Palomino Lane. These parcels include the New Horizons Child Development Center and the Peninsula Heritage School. Flow from these parcels as well as other parcels to the east convey to a lift station and ultimately discharge to the mainline in Rolling Hills Road at MH 211. It is noted that after the 1st submittal it was determined that the initial analysis included extraneous area in the sewer watershed for MH 211. The areas previously identified within area 211 as “Agriculture” (6.977 acres) and “Open Space Rec.” (31.264 acres) were determined to convey north and east and are not tributary to MH 211. The analysis has been revised to not include these extraneous areas. The trunk sewer pipeline is owned and operated by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The sewer within the City of Rolling Hills Estates is maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) and the sewer with the City of Torrance is maintained by the City of Torrance. 141 3 Proposed Sewer Area – See Appendix B The proposed sewer area includes the existing sewer area plus the Project Area. To provide sanitary service to the Project Area, the sewer line must be extended south in Rolling Hills Road to beyond Palos Verdes Drive North. Again, note that Rolling Hills Road becomes Portuguese Bend Road south of Palos Verdes Drive North. Currently the waste discharge flows from both City Hall and tennis court facilities are received into an existing septic tank located on the city hall site. The residential parcels within the Project Area are not currently connected to sanitary sewer. A topographical analysis of the upstream parcels was conducted to determine which parcels may feasibly drain to the proposed sewer (See Appendix C). The analysis determined 235 residential parcels within in the upstream portion of the Project Area which are feasible to drain to the sewer system. Note that for these parcels to drain to the sewer system may require pumps and easements, which is beyond the scope of this report. METHODOLOGY This study performs analyses of the sanitary sewer line in Rolling Hills Road in the Existing and Proposed Conditions. The Existing Conditions model determines all parcels currently conveying to the sanitary sewer line and analyzes the hydraulic characteristics of the flow in the pipes. The Proposed Conditions model builds upon the Existing Condition model by extending the sanitary sewer south to Palos Verdes Drive North and adding the flows from the Project Area to the system. The hydraulic characteristics of the flow in the pipes is analyzed for the Proposed Conditions also. To perform these analyses, the following information is required: 1. Information on the existing sewer: pipe size, slope, and lengths 2. Information on the zoning and land use of the contributing parcels 3. Information on the contributing parcel sizes 142 4 Information for the first item was obtained through research of available as-built information online and at the Cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance. Available relevant as-built information is contained in Appendices D and E. Appendix D contains the mapping of as-builts available from LACDPW. This information was analyzed and it was determined that information on documents PC07160, and PC07786 provide relevant information. Appendix E contains these documents as well as information from the San District (5-P-92 Trunk Sewer Crenshaw Blvd), City of Torrance (documents ss_116 and SS-0043), and as-builts for the storm drain within Rolling Hills Road (SD- PD038889). Appendix E also contains an exhibit showing the location of the as-builts relative to the existing sewer system. As-built information for the upstream portion of the sewer was provided by LACDPW. The as-built information for MH’s 201 to 207 is contained in the plans for Rolling Hills Estates Sanitary District No. 3., PS005727. Information for the second and third items was obtained by utilizing topographical, land use, zoning, and parcel information available online and in GIS databases. (See Appendix F) Information from Items 2 and 3 are utilized to determine the waste flow generated by the properties. The flow generated by the parcels is a multiplication of the parcel acreage and a zoning flow coefficient for existing development. For proposed developments, the flow generated by the parcels is based on the occupancy type. Discussion on the flow coefficients is contained in a following section of this report. Once the generated flow is determined, it is added to the sewer system proceeding upstream to downstream. The pipes between successive manholes are then analyzed to determine the hydraulic characteristics. This is accomplished by utilizing the as-built information obtained in Item 1 and performing hydraulic calculations in accordance with LACDPW requirements. The hydraulic modeling begins at the upstream end of the system and proceeds downstream. Flows from the contributing parcels are accumulated at the manholes in Rolling Hills Road where 143 5 they enter the system. Each pipe segment along the critical path is then hydraulically analyzed. LACDPW Capacity Policy (See Appendix G) defines capacity of the sewer mainline as: < 15” diameter ½ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) > 15” diameter ¾ full = 100% Capacity (flow depth / pipe diameter) All pipes in the system are 8” diameter pipes, therefore the design capacity is ½ full. Each pipe segment was then compared to the 100% capacity (1/2 full) value to determine its’ relative capacity, i.e., < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity. Segments that are over 100% capacity are recommended to have the pipe size upgraded to bring that segment under capacity. As shown on the Exhibits in Appendix B, manholes 201 through 233 are within the City of Rolling Hills Estates. Manholes downstream thereof, numbers 2, 1, 9, 8, and 7 are within the City of Torrance. SEWER PIPE CAPACITY ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, the design capacity is ½ full for pipes < 15” in diameter. LACDPW requires that the pipe flow be calculated by using Kutter’s formula, which is stated below: Q = AC(RS)^(1/2) C = 41.65 + (0.00281/S) + (1.811/n) 1 + (41.65 + 0.00281/S)n (R)^(1/2) Where A = Flow Area (sf) R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) S = Pipe Slope (ft/ft) n = 0.013 144 6 It is noted that for ½ full, R = Diameter / 4 Utilizing Kutter’s Formula, the analyses determined the Design Capacity for each pipe segment. This was calculated within the spreadsheets in Appendices J-1 and J-2. As an independent check of the spreadsheet formula, Design Capacities were also calculated by utilizing FlowMaster software. These calculations are provided in Appendices K-1 and K-2. See also Appendix N, Comment #7 and its’ response. The City of Rolling Hills requested d/D and Velocity information to be included on the spreadsheets in Appendices J-1 and J-2. The supporting FlowMaster calculations have been included in Appendices K-3 and K-4. FLOW COEFFICIENTS Information regarding flow generation coefficients and rates was obtained from the LACDPW and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (San District). The San District flow generation rates were utilized for the Tennis Court Site. The LACDPW table (See Appendix H) provides information on Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies and Zoning Coefficients based on zoning. The upper table values are gallons/day and must be multiplied by 2.5 to obtain peak flow values. This table is typically used for proposed development, however the occupancy types listed apply to the Botanical Comfort Station, City Hall, Dapplegray Elementary School (639 students), Peninsula Heritage School (115 students), and New Horizons Child Development Center (70 students). Information regarding the student populations is included in Appendix F. The lower table values are in cfs/acre and are multiplied by the appropriate acreage to achieve peak flows. The lower table is typically used for existing development and is therefore used for City of Torrance Multi-Family and City of Torrance Commercial parcels. The parcels in Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates in the study area are large. Per the City of Rolling Hills zoning 145 7 information in Appendix F, the parcels in the study area are RAS-1, minimum lots size 1 acre, and RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres. The zoning information for the City of Rolling Hills Estates in Appendix F indicates the residential parcels in the study area are Residential Low Density (1 acre) and Residential Low Density (20,000 sq. ft.). The comments received from LACDPW indicate that the zoning coefficients to be used for large residential lots is to be based on a proration of 0.001 cfs/ac as follows: Rolling Hills: RAS-1, minimum lot size 1 acre (43,560 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac RAS-2, minimum lot size 2 acres (87,120 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac Rolling Hills Estates: Low Density Residential (1 acre) (43,560 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac Low Density Residential (20,000 sf): Coefficient = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560/20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac FLOW GENERATION ANALYSIS The calculations for the flow generated by each area are shown in the tables in Appendix J. The table is a series of multiplications. 146 8 For proposed development, the Calculated Flows for each area is determined as: No. of Occupancy Units x Avg Daily Flow x Peaking Factor x Conversion Factor For existing development, the Calculated Flows are determined as: No. of Units x Area x Zoning Coefficient The calculations proceed from upstream to downstream. The cumulative flows are added to obtain the flow within each pipe segment. This flow is then compared against the Design Capacity Flow (1/2 full) to determine the % of Design Capacity. As stated previously, < 100% (< ½ full) is under capacity and > 100% (> ½ full) is over capacity. As stated previously, the spreadsheets calculate the values for Design Capacity using Kutter’s Formula and backup calculations utilizing FlowMaster software are also provided. Calculations for the flow generated by the City Hall is based on the building size and the Tennis Court Site is dependent upon the parcel size. Information on the parcel size was obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor and this information is found in Appendix L. RESULTS Existing Conditions: The calculations indicate that all pipe segments are under capacity (< 100% of Design Capacity). At the downstream end of the sewer within the City of Torrance, between MH’s 8 and 9, the sewer is at 92.6% of capacity. This is due to a flatter slope in this pipe segment. Proposed Conditions: The calculations indicate that two pipe segments are over capacity (> 100% of Design Capacity). At the downstream end of the sewer within the City of Torrance, the existing 8” sewers are over capacity between MH’s 1 and 9 (121.5 %) and between MH’s 9 and 8 (181.4%). Upgrading the pipe size between MH 1 and MH 9 to a 10” diameter pipe reduces the 147 9 % of Design Capacity to 65.5% and upgrading the pipe size between MH 9 and MH 8 to a 10” diameter pipe reduces the % of Design Capacity to 97.8%. As this is near 100% of Design Capacity, the City of Torrance requests that this pipe segment be upgraded to 12” diameter pipe. This requires that the next downstream pipe segment, between MH 8 and MH 7 also be upgraded to 12” diameter. CONCLUSIONS The analysis provided determines that extending the existing sewer system and adding the flows generated within the Project Area will make two segments of the downstream sewer system over Design Capacity. The lower three segments of the sewer system will require upgrading to 10”, 12”, and 12”. Upgrading the sizes in these segments will place the sewer under Design Capacity. As these improvements will be within the City of Torrance they have been discussed with and reviewed by the City of Torrance. Preliminary plans are provided in Appendix M. The plans show preliminary designs for the proposed sewer extension south in Rolling Hills Road and Portuguese Bend Road, south of Palos Verdes Drive North, and for the upgrading of pipe sizes downstream of MH 1. Please note that these plans are preliminary. The project will move toward final design once final approval of this study is obtained from LACDPW. 148 APPENDIX A San. Dist. Of LA County Boundary Map and Will Serve Letters 149 3/27/2019 LACSD Website - District No. 5 https://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wastewater_services/connectionfee/district5.asp 1/2 A A A Search LACSD Homepage > ... > Connection Fee, Service Charge and More ... > Rates, Forms and Ordinances by District > District No. 5 1955 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90601 (562) 908-4288 ext. 2727 Financial Management Boundary Map District 5 Please click on the arrow and select appropriate document. Please Select If you have any questions about: Connection Fee or Service Charge forms, rates or ordinances, please contact our offices at (562) 908-4288 or (800) 426-7414, extension 2727. Annexation to a County Sanitation District, please contact our offices at (562) 908-4288, extension 2708 or 2793. Click Here for Map of County Sanitation Districts Low Graphics Version Site Powered by, All Sanitation Districts District No. 1 District No. 2 District No. 3 District No. 4 District No. 5 District No. 8 District No. 9 District No. 14 District No. 15 District No. 16 District No. 17 District No. 18 District No. 19 District No. 20 District No. 21 District No. 22 District No. 23 District No. 27 District No. 28 District No. 29 Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District South Bay Cities Sanitation District AREA OF INTEREST 150 151 152 153 154 APPENDIX B Sewer Area Study Exhibits – Existing and Proposed 155 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANCHO PALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLING HILLSESTATES LA COUNTY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 1 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 1280 1260 1240 1220 1200 1180 1160 1140 1120 1100 1080 1060 1 0 40 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 9609409 2 0 9 0 0 8 8 0 860 840 800 780 1220120011805004801 2 2 0 1 2 0 0118 0116011401120110010801060104010201000980960920 9008808 6 0 8 4 0 8 2 080 07807 6 0 10401000 960 940 920 400380360340320300280 260 460 440 420 340 320 300 300 240 220 200 180 160280240140 1 2 0 260 220 2802601340 1 3 2 0130012801280 1260 1240 1320 1 3 0 0 1280 1260 12409609208806 2 0 6005 8 0 12801 2 4 0 7 0 0 680 460 440 1200 11801200 1160 900880860400 380360 1320 1300 9 2 0 9 0 0880 8808608408207407 0 0600580620600 4003 6 0 400380380360360340280260240 2 2 0 180 160 7807602 80 260200180122012001 1 8 0 1160 1160 11 6 0 1140110011201 1 0 0 10801 0 6 01040106010201040102010209 8 0 1000 9609409 4 0 920 8808 8 0860 8 4 0840820820820800 800 780 7 6 0 760 7 6 0720720 700 6 8 0660660 620 640 6206 0 0600600 540 540 520 5405205005 0 0 1 0 4 0 1200 11 8 0 48 0 48048 0 460460460 440 4 2 0 420 420 400 4 0 0380 3803 6 0 3603 2 0 3 0 0280 440300280180 13201260 1240860580 1260 1 2 2 0 7 2 0 420360340340 1280 860580 580380320300280300 1360 13401 3 0 0 128010601 0 8 0 10 401040100010201000 9 8 0960980920 8207404 8 0460420 4 0 0 3 8 0 380 3 6 0 3 0 0 300280240 2 0 0 487 167 215 171 494 198 499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 373 300 245 153 132 247 188 244 372 301 133 219131 152 130 151 134 246187 248 147 1 9 82126 2369 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunityCITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT EXISTING (PAGE 1 OF 2) µMarch 2020 U:\107599 RH Sewer Line Study P1\700-Design\706-GIS\_MapFiles\RollingHillsSewerAreaExist.mxd 0 300 600 900150 Feet 202 Text Text201 211 218217 Text 2126=MH 7Text233C=MH 8 Text203 Text Text 207 210 Text212 Text231 Text232 Text233=MH 2 Text233A=MH 1 Text233B=MH 9 Palos Verdes Dr N C renshaw B lvdTennis Court Site Rolling Hills City Hall Rolling Hills RdLegend LA County SMD Sewer Pipes Jurisdiction Boundary Tributary Area ZONING Agricultural Commercial Commercial Recreation Institutional Open Space Recreation Residential Residential Agricultural Suburban Residential Multi-Family ROLLING HILLSESTATES 1 in = 500 ft ROLLING HILLS (For 11x17: 1 in = 1000 ft) New HorizonsChild Dev Ctr. Peninsula Heritage School Dapplegray ElementarySchool TEXTBotanical Comfort Station 156 EXISTING (PAGE 2 OF 2) March 2020 201 202 8" 0.0888 0.53 1.654 0.001 0.019 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 0.1% 202 203 8" 0.0888 27.14 1.654 0.061 0.104 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 3.7% 8" 0.0888 3.67 1.654 0.120 0.141 Institutional 7.2% 203 207 8" 0.0688 7.79 1.455 0.137 0.158 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 9.4% 207 210 8" 0.066 3.43 1.425 0.144 0.163 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 10.1% 210 211 8" 0.067 1.35 1.436 0.147 0.164 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 10.3% 211 212 8" 0.044 57.83 1.164 0.274 0.241 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 23.6% 8" 0.044 33.18 1.164 0.308 0.254 Min 1 ac lot size area 26.4% 8" 0.044 0.025 1.164 0.333 0.264 Dapplegray Elem. School 28.6% 8" 0.044 0.004 1.164 0.337 0.266 Peninsula Heritage School 28.9% 8" 0.044 0.003 1.164 0.340 0.267 New Horizons Child Ctr. 29.2% 8" 0.044 12.233 1.164 0.352 0.271 Comm. Rec. 30.2% 8" 0.044 2.79 1.164 0.355 0.272 Inst. (Ball Field) 30.5% 212 216 8" 0.026 2.97 0.894 0.361 0.312 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 40.4% 216 218 8" 0.043 0.001 1.150 0.362 0.277 Botanical Comfort Station 31.5% 218 231 8" 0.043 7.34 1.150 0.378 0.282 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 32.9% 231 232 8" 0.043 0.58 1.150 0.380 0.283 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 33.0% 232 233 = 2 8" 0.052 0.65 1.265 0.381 0.271 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 30.1% 2 1 8" 0.051 3.182 1.253 0.432 0.289 Multi-Family 34.5% 1 9 8" 0.022 4.081 0.822 0.497 0.382 Multi-Family 60.5% 9 8 8" 0.0104 1.701 0.565 0.523 0.479 Commercial 92.6% 8 7 = 2126 8" 0.1 0 1.755 0.523 0.269 29.8% * Area (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs) Left justified values are Areas in (acres). Used for parcel peak flow rates calculated as Area (ac) x Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac). Right justified values are peak flow rates in (cfs). MH 211 to MH 212, Dapplegray Elem. School: (10 gpd/student) * 639 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.025 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Peninsula Heritage School: (10 gpd/student) * 115 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.004 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, New Horizons Child Dev. Ctr.: (10 gpd/student) * 70 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.003 cfs MH 216 to MH 218, Botanical Comfort Station based on Apt 3 bdr = 300 gpd * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.001 cfs d/D Comment % of Design CapacityMH# to MH# CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINES CITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIES SEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT Segment Pipe Size Pipe Slope Area (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs)* Design Capacity 1/2 Full (cfs) Cum. Calc'd Flow (cfs) 157 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE LOMITA LOMITA RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLING HILLSESTATES LA COUNTY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 13001280 1260 1240 1220 1 2 0 0 1180 1160 1140 1120 1100 1080 1 0 6 01 0 40 1020 1000 980 960 9209008 8 0 860 84 0 820 800 760 1 2 2 012001100980960940920860840820800780 13201 1 6 01120900880 7807407206806401080 1060 1040 10201000 880 840 800 760 1040 1020 1000 1200 1180 11 6 01 14011201080 1240 12 20 1 2 0 01180 13001 2 8 0 1 2 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 40102 0 1 0 0 0 8808401060 980960940920 820 1 1 6 0 1 1 2 011 0 01080 1 0 4 01 0 2 01 0 0 0 1 1 8 0 1 1 4 0 11 0 0 900 7808608 006 8 0660 6 0 0580560500480460 700 680 640 600 560 520 700 680 660 6 4 0 680 640700 640 620600560520660620600 3 4 03203002802602402 2 0 200 300 280 240 220 180 160 140 120 300280260 200 180 160 8 6 0 80 0 740680640720700380 360 340 4 2 0 3 6 0340 4 0 0 3801 3 2 0 13001280 1 2 6 0 1340 1 3 0 0 1 2 8 0 1260820800320 300 2 8 0340320 340300 900880860 8208 0 07 8 0 6 2 0 600580420400 400 360 1320 1300 1220 1200 1180 5 8 0 5605805604 0 0 380 400 380 400 3 603803602 8 0 2 6 0 2 4 0 2 0 0180 920 9 0 0 38036028026011401020114010001000960 920940800760780740 7 2 0 660 11001260 1260 1 2 0 0 1180900920700580560 560540520480540 3203 2 0 260 260200 240840440460440 440420400400360380360 1320 1 3 0 0340380 340 1280 920760540 3402601 6 0 1 3 6 0 13401280 12201160 10601 0 8 010401020 960980980 9009 2 0 900780760 7607004 8 0460480 4 0 0 3603603 8 0360 2 8 0300 300280240180 4 0 0 200 487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 373 300 245 153 132 247 188 244 372 301 133 219 131 152 130 151 134 246187 248 147 1 9 82126 2369 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserCommunityCITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT PROPOSED (PAGE 1 OF 2) µMarch 2020 U:\107599 RH Sewer Line Study P1\700-Design\706-GIS\_MapFiles\RollingHillsSewerAreaProposed.mxd 0 300 600 900150 Feet 202 Text Text201 211 218217 98 Text 2126=MH 7 Text233C=MH 8 Text203 Text Text 207 210 Text212 Text231 Text232 Text233=MH 2 Text233A=MH 1 Text233B=MH 9 Palos Verdes Dr N C renshaw B lvdTennis Court Site Rolling Hills City Hall Rolling Hills RdLegend Proposed Sewer LA County SMD Sewer Pipes Tributary Area Jurisdiction Boundary ZONING Agricultural Commercial Commercial Recreation Institutional Open Space Recreation Residential Residential Agricultural Suburban Residential Multi-Family ROLLING HILLSESTATES 1 in = 500 ft(For 11x17: 1 in = 1000 ft) ROLLING HILLS New Horizons Child Dev Ctr. Peninsula Heritage School Dapplegray ElementarySchool TEXTBotanical Comfort Station 158 PROPOSED (PAGE 2 OF 2) March 2020 98 99 8" 0.058 488.11 1.336 0.244 0.214 Min 2 ac lot size area 18.3% 98 99 8" 0.058 233.51 1.336 0.478 0.294 Min 1 ac lot size area 35.7% 98 99 8" 0.058 0.014 1.336 0.492 0.298 Tennis Ct. Area 36.8% 98 99 8" 0.058 0.01 1.336 0.502 0.301 #City Hall 37.5% 99 100 8" 0.061 0 1.370 0.502 0.298 36.6% 100 201 8" 0.0506 0 1.248 0.502 0.311 40.2% 201 202 8" 0.0888 0.53 1.654 0.503 0.272 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 30.4% 202 203 8" 0.0888 27.14 1.654 0.562 0.287 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 34.0% 8" 0.0888 3.67 1.654 0.621 0.301 Institutional 37.6% 203 207 8" 0.0688 7.79 1.455 0.638 0.325 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 43.9% 207 210 8" 0.066 3.43 1.425 0.646 0.330 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 45.3% 210 211 8" 0.067 1.35 1.436 0.649 0.330 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 45.2% 211 212 8" 0.044 57.83 1.164 0.776 0.402 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 66.7% 8" 0.044 33.18 1.164 0.809 0.410 Min 1 ac lot size area 69.5% 8" 0.044 0.025 1.164 0.834 0.417 Dapplegray Elem. School 71.7% 8" 0.044 0.004 1.164 0.838 0.418 Peninsula Heritage School 72.0% 8" 0.044 0.003 1.164 0.841 0.419 New Horizons Child Ctr. 72.3% 8" 0.044 12.233 1.164 0.853 0.422 Comm. Rec. 73.3% 8" 0.044 2.79 1.164 0.856 0.423 Inst. (Ball Field) 73.6% 212 216 8" 0.026 2.97 0.894 0.863 0.490 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 96.5% 216 218 8" 0.043 0.001 1.150 0.864 0.428 Botanical Comfort Station 75.1% 218 231 8" 0.043 7.34 1.150 0.880 0.432 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 76.5% 231 232 8" 0.043 0.58 1.150 0.881 0.432 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 76.6% 232 233 = 2 8" 0.052 0.65 1.265 0.883 0.411 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 69.8% 2 1 8" 0.051 3.182 1.253 0.934 0.426 Multi-Family 74.5% 1 9 8" 0.022 4.081 0.822 0.999 0.560 Multi-Family 121.5% 1 9 10" 0.022 1.525 0.999 0.398 Upgrade to 10" 65.5% 9 8 8" 0.0104 1.701 0.565 1.024 0.733 Commercial 181.4% 9 8 10" 0.0104 1.047 1.024 0.493 Upgrade to 10" 97.8% 9 8 12" 0.0104 1.736 1.024 0.376 Upgrade to 12" 59.0% 8 7 = 2126 8" 0.1 0 1.755 1.024 0.375 58.4% 8 7 = 2126 10" 0.1 3.254 1.024 0.276 Upgrade to 10" 31.5% 8 7 = 2126 12" 0.1 5.393 1.024 0.216 Upgrade to 12" 19.0% * Area (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs) Left justified values are Areas in (acres). Used for parcel peak flow rates calculated as Area (ac) x Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac). Right justified values are peak flow rates in (cfs). MH 98 to MH 99, Tennis Ct. based on Golf Course, Camp, and Park: 100 gpd/1000 sf = (100 gpd*37,460 sf/1000 sf)*2.5*(1 cfs/646317 gpd) = 0.014 cfs MH 98 to MH 99, City Hall based on Office Bldg: 200 gpd/1000 sf gr. flr. area: 200 gpd*13,000 sf/1000 sf) *2.5*(1 cfs/646317 gpd) = 0.010 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Dapplegray Elem. School: (10 gpd/student) * 639 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.025 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Peninsula Heritage School: (10 gpd/student) * 115 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.004 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, New Horizons Child Dev. Ctr.: (10 gpd/student) * 70 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.003 cfs MH 216 to MH 218, Botanical Comfort Station based on Apt 3 bdr = 300 gpd * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.001 cfs CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINES CITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIES SEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBIT % of Design CapacityMH# to MH# Segment Pipe Size Pipe Slope Design Capacity 1/2 Full (cfs) Cum. Calc'd Flow (cfs)d/DArea (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs)* Comment 159 APPENDIX C Sewer Analysis Area of Upstream Parcels 160 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 #4 " F O R C E M A I N #4 " F O R C E M A I N PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER TORRANCE RANCHOPALOS VERDES RANCHO PALOSVERDES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUNTY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS Mustang RdEmptySaddleLn Port uguese Bend RdPalosVerdesDrN SkylineDrC re n s h a w B lv d Eastvale RdRanchview R d RollingHillsRdAcadem yD rCinchring Rd E m p t y S a d d l e R d Ma tfield D r Middlerid g e RdPascal Pl Goldring Pl Grand Summit Dr CrestRdE Briarwoo d D rRidgeland Rd Bronco DrRoanwoodDrC r e st R d S a d d l e b ack Rd Humm ingbird LnHawthorne BlvdColina Ln FaircrossStCalle RioDr UpperBlackwaterCanyonRdM artingaleDr Crest Rd W P o r t o b e l l o D r Highcross DrH ig h cliff D r N e a r c l i f f S t Bolan L n EastfieldDr HackamoreRdP o n y LnJohnsCanyonRdP ortuguese B end R dLowerBlackwaterCanyonRdAcacia Ln Saddle Horn LnSpurLn Foxridge LnDelMar R o u s s e a u L n OakbayRdSil v erl ea f DrSaddlebow LnCalleDr PalominoLn Dalemead StVistaGrande TravisLnM e a d o w larkLnR oundupRdBrian AveAcacia RdL a s C a n c h a s S t S k y larkDrOceanaireDr Oa k wo o d L n Calmhill DrElConchoLnSingletree Ln Rawhide LnRea t a LnGeor gef f RdWagon Ln Eucalyptus Ln Cheste r f i e l d Rd L o w e rR a n chviewRdCayuseLnS t allion RdPalos Verdes Dr. N.Sha dowLnClubViewLnP into LnW Hidden Ln MontaigneLnQuinlinDr Tall y handRdM occasin LnDel os DrDobbin LnChuckwagonRdS agebrush L n Roessler Ct BrandingIronLnS Ri c h v ille DrChadwickLn PheasantLnSun n y fi eldLnPrivateDrwyBuckboardLnLariat Ln H ills id e L n Loftyview Dr QuailRidgeRdSSunnyridgeRdD e lo s D rChaparralL n RockinghorseRd Caball eros RdBowie R dTa n g lewoodL n Palos Verdes Ln Surrey LnRainbowRidgeRdWilliamsburgLnWEstatesLnMiddleridgeLnN Possum Ridge RdRoadrunnerRdOut r i der RdQu ail Rid g e R d N St r a wb e r r y L n AppaloosaLnWestvaleRdP o p p y T rlBuckskinLn PinetreeLnMiddleridgeLnSBuggyWhipDr1300 1280 1260 1240 122 0 1180 1160 1140 1120 1 1 0 0 1040 1020 1000 980 8 2 0 800 780 760 740 720 1 2 0 0 980 9 6 0940920900840 8 2 0800780760 7 4 0 1080 1060 960 940 920 900 1320 860 840 820 800 760 1120110010801060104010201060104010208808 6 0 128012609209007006806 6 0 120011801160114011201100108010601280 1260 1240 1220 660 640 620 600 580 560 5 4 0 520 500 480 620 600 580 540 520 500 540 5 2 0480 3 4 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 2 8 0 2 6 0 200 180 240 220 3203002801320 1300 128 0 1 2 6 01240122 0 1180 1160 1140 1120900880840440400380360340320300280340320900880860480460440 3803603402602402201320 1300 1200 1180 600 580 4804604 0 03 804003803603803603002802802602602 4 0 400 3 8 0 1240 1 2 2 0 1200 1200 1180 116011401100 10001 0 0 0 880 880860780760740700700 680 1 0 4 0 1020 6 4 0 5 8 0580560560500 340300160 480460480 4604 2 0 4 4 04404404 0 0 420400 400 3 8 0 3 8 0380 3 4 0360 360360860420840500 32012001 2 2 05605 4 0 3 6 0 360 300280 128010601080 9609809609009 2 0820780460480 460 380380340360300260Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSSEWER ANALYSIS AREA & EXISTING LAND USES µAugust 22, 2019 0 300 600150 Feet U:\107599 RH Sewer Line Study P1\700-Design\706-GIS\_MapFiles\Rolling Hills Sewer Study - Exhibit 1.mxd Legend Sewer Pipes Sewer Manholes !!2 LA County Trunk Sewer LA County Trunk Sewer Manholes !!2 City of Rolling Hills Proposed Sewer Drainage Area Zoning Residential Agricultural Suburban Residential Residential Multi-Famil y Commercial Commercial Recreation Open Space Recreation Agricultural Institutional Terrain Contours City Boundaries 1 inch = 400 feet Arrows indicate flow paths as dictated by the topography. The parcels outside of the black boundary are not feasible to convey to the proposed sewer in Rolling Hills Road. 161 APPENDIX D LACDPW Maintenance District Information 162 Department of Public Works dpw.lacounty.gov Sewer Maintenance Home WDR Workshop Condition Assessment Program Homeowner Information Programs Services Trap The Grease (FOG) Report Urgent Problems JUR Information How Are We Doing? GENERAL INFORMATION About Us FAQ SEWER MAINTENANCE Contact Us Operations Maps SEWER MAINTENANCE "We provide sewer maintenance services to protect the public and the environment in a highly- efficient, effective, and responsive manner. We service: Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District County Unincorporated Areas and the following cities: Agoura Hills Artesia Baldwin Park Bellflower Bell Gardens Bradbury Calabasas Carson Commerce Cudahy Diamond Bar Duarte Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hidden Hills Industry Irwindale* La Cañada Flintridge La Habra Heights Lakewood La Mirada Lawndale Lomita Malibu Palos Verdes Estates Paramount Pico Rivera Rancho Palos Verdes Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Rosemead San Dimas Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs South El Monte Temple City Walnut Westlake Village West Hollywood* * limited services on a contract basis Marina Del Rey Sewer Maintenance District Marina Del Rey Sewer Pipe Image Photographed by Kari Marie REPORTS Annual Reports Condition Assessment Reports CSMD Maintenance and Operations Manual SSMP Audit 2010 SSMP Audit 2012 SSMP Audit 2015 SSMP Audit 2018 SSMP SEWER LOCATOR Interactive Map MISC CCTV Inspection Guidelines (pdf) lacounty.gov | Public Works FAQ | Privacy / Terms of Use | |   Feedback 163 search our site.. Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District - Sanitary Sewer Network Sewer Maps and Overlays are available in PDF format, click on the desired map grid and make your selection to view. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view maps. Enter Address, Cross Street, Parcel No., or Manhole No.: (ex: 900 S. Fremont Ave., Fremont@Valley, 5342005904, 2017-0548) Search Search Layers About Help County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, IN… + – Basemaps Project Area and Areas Downstream 164 AREA OF INTEREST 165 AREA OF INTEREST 166 AREA OF INTEREST 167 AREA OF INTEREST 168 APPENDIX E As-Built Plans 169 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 #4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE LOMITA ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUNTY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 600 580 560 540 520 500460440 4404204204003803604 8 0460 320 280 240 220 200 180 260 160 3403006 6 0620 4003803 6 0 220 200 1 8 0160 380 360 400 360 3 8 036 0 3403203002 8 0 520500520500480460440460440400 380 4003802402204 0 0 4 0 03803 6 0 3403 4 0 3203003 0 0 260340400360380340620420360380 520420380 360360320 34028 0 300 300280260240140 500 487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 373 300 245 153 132 247 188 244 372 301 133 219131 152 130 151 134 246187 248 147 1 9 82126 2369 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User CommunityCITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESAS-BUILT PLANS µOctober 2019 U:\107599 RH Sewer Line Study P1\700-Design\706-GIS\_MapFiles\RollingHillsAsBuilt.mxd 0 300 600150 Feet SS-116 andSS-0043 PC-07786 5-P-92 Trunk SewerCrenshaw Boulevard PD07160 PS005727 = 2 =7=7 ROLLING HILLSESTATES 8 170 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 171 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 172 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MH 2126 = MH 7 MH 8 173 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 174 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 175 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 176 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 177 DISCLAIMER: THE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (DISTRICTS) PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION “AS IS” FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ONLY. THE DISTRICTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR WARRANT THE ACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION SHOWN OR THE DRAWINGS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD. THE DISTRICTS DISCLAIM ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE INFORMATION MAY REFLECT ONLY AS-PLANNED LOCATIONS AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE LOCATIONS OF AS-BUILT FACILITIES OR SUBSEQUENTLY BUILT FACILITIES. APPROPRIATE FIELD VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF DISTRICTS' FACILITIES. FACILITIES WITHIN DISTRICTS' PROPERTY ARE NOT SHOWN. ANY PERSON PERFORMING EXCAVATION MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216. NOTE THAT "SUBSURFACE INSTALLATIONS" AS DEFINED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 EXCLUDES NON-PRESSURIZED SEWERS, NON-PRESSURIZED STORM DRAINS, AND OTHER NON-PRESSURIZED DRAIN LINES. ANY PERSON PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS OVER OR BELOW DISTRICTS' FACILITIES WITHIN PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDOVER AGREEMENT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 178 116TT????????????????????????????????????????????????!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!RRRRRR256 6 025953259352593025924290529092911291329152919292129232927292929332935293726542663260627102647265826102714265126622705261426552718462626263526502630263926542623263426432658262726382647266226312642265126662635264626552546270226392650265726022706264327622746273025 8 0 5272027162749276527502734276627122710270627702271927552749274327372733272927252759271327672763 2709261826572702271327222622266327062 6 0 2 6271926022262627262710272526302703273027142707272926029270227342715260252718273326021270627382601727222721273727032742271027262725274127092582427462714273027292745258202713258142750271827342733274925810227542722273827372753258312582525819274127582726275727422581325809274527612709 25909-13272327052590527272592029032 9 0 5 290129072590429092580329022911260626102913291629042 6 0 2 29152918290629082917261129142919 2920292229242 9 1 2 25 6 902 6 0 7 2 9 1 029212603 29262292829232572725729302925257212572629322926291529192923292729342927257222571729282936256342929256362571829382931293025713256322931293129402571428302933293329322563029332571029352562825707293528342934293625626293729352570629422 5 6 2 4 29392838293629372 5 6 2 2 293829372941256182 5 6 2 0 28332 9 4 729432842256182938300229392945229393004283725616284629403006 302229412941302 04 2 5 '5 '18 '25 '25 '18 '5 '1 7 .5 '2 5 'L OF T Y V I E W D RCLIFF ST.R O L L IN G H IL L S R D .SKYLARK DRROLLING HILLS ROADBRIARWOOD DRHIGHCROSS DRHIGHCL S RD O A K W O O D L N CAROLWOOD LNAMBERLEAF RDS U N NY G L E N R D G R A N D S U M M I T D RCREST R O A D RIDGELAND ROADROLLING HILCRENSHAW BLVDPORTOBELLO DRRIDGELAND ROADCRENSHAW BLVDCRENSHAW BLVDNEAR_H IG H C L IF F D R2+1 3 .0 18+367+47.30+05.0015+46.85+70.13+86.10 +7 0 .1 17+2916+050+28.36+169+63.81+27.82+75.216+61.510+65.92+24.28+481+83.59+1712+929+92 "Y";10+139+79.016+720+67.63+93.62 +3 2 .6 9+87.81+86.82+24.21+73.14+61.00+73.86+31.07+73.18+77.61+66.18+81.98+74.92+59.97+70.63+27.24+20.29+84.53+82.88+00.6 ''Y''0 +7 3 .4 10+92.811+74.410+87.910+90.43+78.85+64.08+08.27 +1 3 ''Y ''1+16.11+01.05+06;5+15 ''Y''9+05;9+14 ''Y''6+08.64+81.10+89.02+82 ''Y''18+1113+04 ''Y8+35;8+67 ''Y ''10+08 "Y";10+36.515+924+12 "Y";4+175+42;5+63 ''Y''5+42.5 ''Y''2+48;06 ''Y''Y ''9+38.5;9+71 ''Y''4+55.5 "Y";4+6610+04.5 "Y";10+21218+75 "Y";19+17.5'1 0 +0 0 "Y ";1 0 +1 2 .57+30 "Y ";7+487+06"Y ";6+95'5+87.7 "C"4+15.3 "C"5+85.3 "C"2+78.51 +8 56+405+391 +2 5 .1 2+790 +7 0 .1 1 +2 7 .6 9+63.80+67.61+197+73.11 +1 1 .2 11+74.44+69+522+78.53+78.812+147+78.56+81.21 +1 1 .2 5+985+271 +8 1 .9 1 +2 7 .66+42.11+73.110+65.92+393+30.84+884+87.58+793+30.813+098+948+77.64+81.13+65.513+0Y''4+87.59+406+81.25+713+78.818+1917+572+912+966+476+628+81.90+668+452+72.54+171 +2 5 .17+47.37+207+78.54+89.54+89.53+384+519+76.51+86.80+79.56+91.47+952+700+69 ''Y''3+750+38.50+663+531 +5 01+36.510+87.94+476+602+704+856+543+81.52 +1 3 .0 0+73.82 +3 2 .6 5+664+698+00.6 ''Y''4+866+91.410+90.45+957+343+10.5 ''Y''9+87.85+977+659+54+61.02+59.97+870+05.006+42.12+72.510+92.81+33.517+479+265+46.81+16.18+278+792+64.63+86.18+68.55+982 +6 7 8+98.51+81.08+51.53+237+18.1Y''0 +6 11+66.18+248+08.20+62.53+78.87+70.62+520+79.50+62.51+36.53+793+82.812+82 ''Y''3+093+93.61+01.03+498+74.91 +9 2 1+81.02+75.27+131+27.85+70.19+76.56+31.9115+9515+483+65.50 +5 5 .4 2+47.42+47.49+96.5 "Y";10+216 +0 7 ''Y ''+68 ''Y''2+37;2+52 ''Y''1+48;1+62 ''Y''1+25;1+13 ''Y''1+77;1+68 ''Y''1+98;2+04 ''Y''0+98;1+00 ''Y''0+58;0+63 ''Y''9 +3 6 ;9 +5 5 ''Y ''7+85 "Y ";8+007+89.5;7+95 ''Y''8+56 "Y";8+77.53+78 ''Y''6+84.0 ''Y''2 +5 0 .52+64.64+38.50 +7 3 .41+33.53+153+530+28.32 +5 0 .5 7+736+08.69+79.04+38.5111+98 ''Y''11+98 ''Y''1+96 ''Y''11+96 ''Y''7+46.910+51.2 "C"3 +2 9 11+877+99.448+87.010+06.59+53.3656+00.476+00.003+00.006 +1 8 .2 0 9+86.915 +1 4 .1 88+08.665+53.552+51.528 +6 3 .8 010+49.452 +2 1 .6 0 16+93.977+32.66+94.914+30.949+50.532+34.880 +7 6 .5 6 5+65.5218+902 +5 2 5+71.6052+35.780+98.172+99.7816+91.37 13+58.932+59.9312+78.912+58.586+03.365 +0 5 .7 4 6+65.434+49.4410+12.602+69.831+06.011+58649+2 +1 0 2 +319+28.8116+33.4712+19.217+76.8719+37.480 +3 5 .8 0 SA-3-2BS S -4 3SS-1044SA-3-2CSA-3-2AS S -2 3 6 SA-3-2CSA-4-12S S -2 6 1SS-264SA-3-2BS S -2 6 1 SS-43SA-3-2BSS-263SA-3-2CS A -3 -2 A SA-3-2BSA-3-2C SA-3-2BS A -3 -2 B SS-261SA-3-2C S S -2 6 1 SS-1021SS-263SS-1044SS-261SS-1044SS-1021SS-1044SS-261S A -3 -2 A SS-43S A -3 -2 C S A -3 -2 CSS-1064SS-1064SS-1064SS-1044SS-263S A -3 -2 C SA-4-12SS-1044SA-3-2CSA-3-2BS A -3-2A SA-3-2BS S -2 6 4 (5')(7')(5')(6 ')(5')(5')(6')(8')(8)(8 ')(8.4')(8.8')(8.3')(8.3')(9.2')(9.2')(9 .3 ') (9 .6 ')(8.4')(9.1')(7.3')(5.6')(8.9')(9.4')(5.2')(7 .4 ') (7 .8 ')(7.6')(9.7')(3.4')(4.9')(5 .1 ')(9.6')(5.5')(5.1')(8.1')(7.7(7 .8 ')(5.1')(6.8')(10.1')(11.8')(18.3')(10.3')(9')(8 ')(10')(8.8')(18.4')(11.7')(9.1')(9.5')QR06QR12QR01QR02QR03QR03QR02QR01QR04QR05QR11QR08QR13QR03QR01QR13QR11QR12QR14QR09QR02QR07QR09QR01QR04QR02QR05QR21QR10QR03QR06QR07QR01QR10QR07QR16QR07QR06QR03QR04QR17QR01QR12QR20QR09QR11QR10QR081+000+000+000+00(4.9')0+000 +0 00+0+00ABAND.SS-1021SS-1021(ABAND.)5+00(11.3')SEALEDPLUGGED0 +4 1 ON CLON CL(4 .8 ')(8.1)5 +8 5 0+00=0 +1 20+5012'' VCP15'' VCP15'' VCP15'' VCP12'' VCP15'' VCP18'' VCP18'' VCP18'' VC15'' VCPDec 18, 2008L E G E N D")CHIMNEYhLIFT STATION0 + 901 + 00H.C. TO PL0 + 75 "Y"C.O.0 + 50 "C"H.C. TOCURBM.H.!(!(ØSTA.0 + 00DEPTH(6.6')SS - 100PLAN NO.8" SEWER UNLESS INDICATEDCOUNTY SEWER?SHEET NO.654CITY OF TORRANCESANITARY SEWERSDRAWN:DATE:CHECKED:REV:123NAPRIVATE SEWER?SEWER EASEMENTSTREET CENTER LINEABAND. SEWER & MH0100200100119118117113 114 115116118W116W179 MH 233 = MH2 MH 1 MH 9 180 MH 233 = MH 2 MH 232 MH 231 MH 218 181 MH 218 MH 216 MH 212 MH 211 MH 211 MH 210 MH 207 182 MH 212 183 MH 211 184 See page 9 185 MH 207 MH 203 MH 201 6.88% 8.88% 186 MH 216 MH 217 187 188 8.6 ftMH 23323.3 ft108.7 ftMH 233-AMH 233-BMH 233-C17.8 ft6.5 ft17.2 ft154.6 ft189 MH 232MH 231MH 2189.8 ft16.7 ft11.5 ft18.1 ft3.4 ft9.9 ft155.8 ft260.3 ft265.7 ft190 2.1 ftMH 2169.1 ftMH 212MH 211MH 210MH 2078.5 ft16.4 ft8.4 ft16.5 ft2.3 ft10.1 ft15.6 ft22.8 ft84.4 ft244.4 ft214.4 ft202.8 ft175.1 ft191 MH 203192 APPENDIX F Subarea Areas, Zoning and Land Use Information 193 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN 4" FORCE MAIN RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES RANC HOPALOSVERDES RANCHOPALOSVERDES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLIN G H ILLS 1 3 0 0 1 2 4 012001040940920880 1320 1160 1000 920 960 840 800 1040 800108010601200 1160 1260960 1040 1 0 0 0 120010801160920 700 600 5 2 0480 560 520 480 540500 1160 1120 480 4 4 0 36030012001160 13201280 980940660 620 660620 1 1 8 0 11401020900860780 1220 7 0 0 680640560500 580860880460460 4003 8 0 12801300940 880360 12806003401260 1220 1 1 8 010601000980980 980 920780740740720400 420 487 167 215 171 494 198499 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 177502501 506 174168 169 505 211 209203 172498 179163 500 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 185 229 204 191 161 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170162 128 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 199 125 164 496 201 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246 187 2369 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 98 TO MH 99µ0 300 600 900 1,200150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 98 to M H 99 ZONING Institutional Residential Residential Agricultural Suburban 1 in = 1 ,20 0 ft Low Density (1 acre)Area=233.51 acreLow Density (2 acre)Area=488.11 acre Tennis Court SitePeak Flow=0.014 cfs City HallPeak Flow=0.01 cfs 194 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 360 320 2 6 0 340320300280 4 0 0 380 440 400 3 8 0 380360340340320 300 480440320300520500 4003603 8 0 3 6 0 360340260240480460480 4 6 0380 3603403 4 0 4203 4 0 2 8 0 4602805 2 0 3 8 0 460440420 4204 0 0360 240 487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172498 179163 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 201 TO MH 202µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 201 to M H 202 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =0.53 acre 195 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!22 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCEROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUNTY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3803603203 8 0360340 520500480 460500480340320300280380 360 6 4 0600 580 560 6 0 0580 560 5403403 0 0 520460460 4404404404 2 0 4004003003 6 0 3805403 4 0 620580600 3 2 0 5 0 0 4 8 0480460 4 0 0360 320487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 131 130 246187 248100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 202 TO MH 203µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 202 to M H 203 ZONING Industrial Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area=27.14 acre Inst.Area=3.67 196 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300280 260 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 3203002 8 0260 3002804 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 380320240 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 203 TO MH 207µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 203 to M H 207 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =7.79 acre 197 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300280 260 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 3203002 8 0260 3002804 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 380320240 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 207 TO MH 210µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 207 to M H 210 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =3.43 acre 198 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300280 260 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 3203002 8 0260 3002804 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 380320240 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 210 TO MH 211µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 210 to M H 211 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =1.35 acre 199 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 5 0 0480460 4 4 0420400 480 460 3 8 036 0 340380 360 5 0 0 440620 540380360 3203003803604003403 6 0 3 4 0 3 2 0 3603 2 0 3 0 0 3002802604003 803603204 0 0 4 2 0 3403 2 0 3205 2 0 5 2 0340 2805 8 0 560 4804 8 0 360380340300 300487 167 215 171 198 231 175 202 230 205 178 217 196 232 177174 223 168 169 211 209 203 172 179163 218 135 227 477 216 488 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 221 199 125 164 201 373 300 245 153 132 247 188 244 372 301 133 219131 152 130 151 134 246187 248 147 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 211 TO MH 212µ0 300 600150 Feet Legend MH 211 to M H 212 ZONING Comm ercial Recreational Industrial Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (1 acre)Area=33.18 acre Peninsula Heritage SchoolPeak Flow=0.004 cfs New Horizons ChildDev. Ctr.Pe ak Flow=0.003 cfs Dapplegray Elem. SchoolPeak Flow=0.025 cfs Te xtComm. Rec.Area=12.23 acre Te xtInst. (Ball Field)Area =2.79 acre Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area=57.83 acre Rolling Hills Rd200 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300280 260 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 3203002 8 0260 3002804 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 380320240 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 212 TO MH 216µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 212 to M H 216 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =2.97 acre 201 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCEROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLS ESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY LACOUNTY ROLLINGHILLS 440 420 4 0 0 380 3 6 0 3 4 0 320 480 4 6 0 460 4403002 8 0 520500380360340320300280320300280260240220 520 500 480 360340480 46 0360340420 3803803603 0 0 400380400 320460 4 4 0 380340487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 188 244187 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 216 TO MH 218µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 216 to M H 218 1 in = 6 00 ft Te xt Te xtBotanical Comfort StationPeak Flow=0.001 cfs 202 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300280 260 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 3203002 8 0260 3002804 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 380320240 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 218 TO MH 231µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 218 to M H 231 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =7.34 acre 203 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300 280 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 320300280 2 6 0 4 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 3803203 0 0 2 6 0 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3402405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 231 TO MH 232µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 231 to M H 232 ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =0.58 acre 204 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300 280 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 320300280 2 6 0 4 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 3803203 0 0 2 6 0 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3402405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 232 TO MH 233=MH 2 (TORRANCE)µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 232 toMH 233=M H 2 (Torrance) ZONING Residential 1 in = 6 00 ft Low Density (2 0,0 00)Area =0.65 acre 205 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCEROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLS ESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY LACOUNTY ROLLINGHILLS 440 420 4 0 0 380 3 6 0 3 4 0 320 480 4 6 0 460 4403002 8 0 520500380360340320300280320300280260240220 520 500 480 360340480 46 0360340420 3803803603 0 0 400380400 320460 4 4 0 380340487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 188 244187 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 233=MH 2 (TORRANCE) TO MH 1µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 233=M H 2 (Torrance) to M H 1 ZONING Residential Multi-Family 1 in = 6 00 ft Residential Multi-FamilyArea=3.18 acre 206 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLING HILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLSESTATES LA COUN TY LA COUNTY ROLLING HILLS 3 6 0 340320300 280 360340440420480440500 4 6 0 400 3803403203 0 0 320300280 2 6 0 4 2 0400380 4804603 8 0 3803203 0 0 2 6 0 480 4604003 6 0 3 4 0 3402405404 6 0 380 360520540500440420 4 0 0 380360 360360487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 504 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177 502 501 506 174 223 168 169 505 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181 485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 245 132 247 188 244 133 131 152 130 151 134 246187248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 1 TO MH 9µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 1 to M H 9 ZONING Comm ercial Residential Multi-Family 1 in = 6 00 ft Residential Multi-FamilyArea=4.08 acre 207 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 2 2 2#4" FORCE MAIN #4" FORCE MAIN TORRANCE ROLLINGHILLSESTATES ROLLINGHILLS ESTATES LA COUNTY ROLLINGHILLS 340 320 280 240 220 300 260 3 6 0340 320 280 4003804 8 0 4 6 0440 520420 420400380400380380360 360340320280200 180 3 8 0 4003 0 0 4 2 0 340 360 3805005204403803603603 2 0300 280300220487 167 215 171 494 198499 231 175 202 492 230 205 178 217 196 232 177502 501 506 174 223 168 169 211 209 203 172 498 179163 500 218 135 227 477 497 216 488 495 183 165 200 129 159 214 186 173 160 181485 197 176 233 185207 229 204 191 161 219 484 127 212 213 189 228 489 220 210 184 126 503 159 193 206 226 190 225 180170 162 128 222 224 195 166 182 194 192 486 493 221 199 125 164 496 201 300 245 153 132 247 188 244 372 133 219131 152 130 151 134 246187 248 147 1 9 82126 100 99 98 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NR Can,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community CITY OF ROLLING HILLSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINESCITY HALL, TENNIS COURT SITE, AND UPSTREAM PROPERTIESSEWER AREA STUDY EXHIBITAREA MH 9 TO MH 8µ0 300 600150 Feet Rolling Hills RdLegend MH 9 to M H 8 ZONING Comm ercial 1 in = 6 00 ft Comme rcialArea=1.70 acre 208 209 Skip To Content (#content) Zoning Ordinance Summary - Residential Zones Table of Contents Residential Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/residential_zones ) Agricultural Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/agricultural_zones ) Combining Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/combining_zones ) Commercial Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/commercial_zones ) Industrial Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/industrial_zones ) Rural Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/rural_zones ) Special Purpose Zones (http://planning.lacounty.gov/luz/summary/category/special_purpose_zones ) This is a SUMMARY ONLY of the Los Angeles County Zoning Ordinance (unincorporated area). The information herein is NOT ALL- INCLUSIVE. One other thing to also keep in mind --USES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL PLANS, AND/OR COMMUNITY STANDARDS DISTRICTS. THESE MAY LIMIT THE TYPE AND INTENSITY OF USE. For more complete information, see Title 22 (Planning and Zoning) (http://planning.lacounty.gov/title22) of the Los Angeles County Code, or stop by the office of the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Room 1360 Hall of Records, 320 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. Phone: (213) 974-6411. New Title 22 - Residential Zones (effective 2019-02-28) (http://planning.lacounty.gov/title22) Zone R-A: Residential Agricultural Permitted Uses: Single family residences (22.18.030.C) Crops (field, tree, bush, berry, row and nursery stock) (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area: Unless otherwise specified 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130.A.4.c, 22.110.140) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet (22.18.040.C.1) Minimum Required Parking: 210 2 covered parking spaces per single family residence (22.112.070) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 20 feet (22.18.040) Rear Yard: 15 feet (22.18.040) Corner/Interior Side Yards: (22.18.040) Reverse Corner Side: 10 feet Lot: See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single family residences Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-1: Single-Family Residence Permitted Uses: Single family residences with accessory uses (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area: Unless otherwise specified: 5,000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130, 22.110.140) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.18.040.C.1) (unless modified by a special standards district such as a community standards district.) Minimum Required Parking: 2 covered parking spaces per single family residence (22.112.030) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 20 feet (22.18.040), except as provided in special Standards District Rear Yard: 15 feet or 20% of average depth of shallow lot, but not less than 10 feet (22.18.040 and 22.110.080) Side Yards: Interior Lot: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.18.040 and 22.110.080) Corner Lot: 5 feet except on reversed corner lot, which is 10 feet (22.18.040) Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-2: Two-Family Residence Permitted Uses: Two family residences (or duplex), single family residences (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 211 5,000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130) 2,500 sq. ft./unit (22.110.140) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.18.040.C.1). See special standards district Minimum Required Parking: 3 covered spaces + 1 covered or uncovered space per unit for each 2-family residence (duplex) (22.112.070) 2 covered spaces for Single Family Residence, same as in R-1 zone (22.112.070) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 20 feet (22.18.040) Rear Yard: 15 feet (22.18.040 and 22.110.080) Interior/Corner Side: 5 feet (22. 18.040 and 22.110.080) Reverse Corner Side: 10 feet (22.18.040) Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-3: Limited Density Multiple Residence Permitted Uses: Apartment houses, uses permitted in Zone R-1 and R-2 (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130.A.4) Density: 30 du/ac (22.110.120.B) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.18.040.C.1) Minimum Required Parking: Each bachelor apartment unit, 1 covered space Each efficiency or 1 bedroom apartment unit, 1 1/2 covered spaces Each 2 bedroom apartment unit, 1 1/2 covered + 1/2 uncovered spaces See R-1 and R-2 zones Guest parking required for apartments with a minimum of 10 units at a ratio of 1 space for each 4 units (22.112.070 and 22.112: Parking) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 15 ft., except as provided (22.18.040) Rear Yard: 15 ft. or 20% of average depth of lot, not less than 10 ft. (22. 18.040 and 22.110.080) 212 Interior/Corner Side: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.18.040 and 22.110.080) Reversed Corner Side: 7 1/2 feet (22.18.040) Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-4: Medium Density Multiple Residence Permitted Uses: Apartment houses, uses permitted in Zone R-3 (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130.A.4) Density: 50 du/ac (22.110.120.C.), depending on the land use category Maximum Height Limit: 13 times the buildable area (22.18.040.C.2) Minimum Required Parking: See Chapter 22.112: Parking Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 15 ft., except as provided (22.18.040) Rear Yard: 15 ft. or 20% of average depth of lot, not less than 10 ft. (22. 18.040 and 22.110.080) Interior/Corner Side Yards: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.18.040 and 22.110.080) Reversed Corner Side Yard: 7 1/2 feet (22.18.040) Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-5: High Density Multiple Residence Permitted Uses: Apartment houses, uses permitted in Zone R-1 and R-2 (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130) Density: 213 100-150 du/ac (22.110.120.D), depending on the land use category (22.110.120.D) Maximum Height Limit: 45 feet with stepback if adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zone (22.18.040.C.5), 65 feet (22.18.040.C.5) (if not adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zone) Minimum Required Parking: See R-1 and R-2 zones (22.112.070) See Chapter 22.112: Parking) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 5 feet (22.18.040) All other Yards: 15 feet if adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zone, or 0 feet if not adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zone (22.18.040) Zone RPD: Residential Planned Development Permitted Uses: Single family residences (22.18.030.C) Planned unit development with approved CUP (22.18.030.C) Minimum Required Area (unless otherwise specified) 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.110.130.A.4 and 22.110.140) 5 acres/development project (22.18.040) Density - as established by CUP & zoning (22.18.020 and (22.18.060.C.2) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet (22.18.060) As established by CUP (22.18.060) Minimum Required Parking: See Chapter 22.112: Parking Density: As established by CUP and zoning (22.18.020) Standard Yard Requirements: All yards: same as R-1 (22.18.030) or as established by CUP The Regional Planning Commission, in approving a CUP for a planned development, may modify or require greater yards than those required in a normal single-family residential development. Building separation is a minimum of 10 feet for 1 and 2 stories. Add 2 feet for each story above 2 stories (22.18.020) Development Standards: (See 22.140.580 regarding development standards for single-family residences) The CUP will regulate the type of structures, open space, building coverage, utilities, landscaping, and other features. 214 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/tu) Please note that effective February 28, 2019, the following Code section references have been updated as listed above. Visit Title 22 (http://planning.lacounty.gov/title22) for more information. Zone R-1: Single Family Residence Permitted Uses: Single family residences (22.20.070 - 22.20.100) Minimum Required Area: Unless otherwise specified: 5,000 sq. ft./lot (22.52.100, 22.52.250) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.20.110) (unless modified by a special standards district such as a community standards district.) Minimum Required Parking: 2 covered parking spaces per single family residence (22.52.1180) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 20 feet (22.20.120), except as provided in special Standards District Rear Yard: 15 feet or 20% of average depth of shallow lot, but not less than 10 feet (22.20.120 and 22.48.110) Side Yards: Interior Lot: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.20.120 and 22.48.100) Corner Lot: 5 feet except on reversed corner lot, which is 10 feet (22.20.120) Development Standards: (See 22.20.105 regarding development standards for single-family residences) Zone R-2: Two Family Residence Permitted Uses: Two family residences (or duplex), single family residences (22.20.170 - 22.20.200) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 215 5,000 sq. ft./lot (22.52.100) 2,500 sq. ft./unit (22.52.270) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.20.210). See special standards district Minimum Required Parking: 1 1/2 covered spaces + 1/2 uncovered space per unit for each 2- family residence (duplex) Single Family Residence, same as in R-1 zone (22.52.1180) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 20 feet (22.20.220) Rear Yard: 15 feet or 20% of average depth of shallow lot, but not less than 10 feet (22.20.220 and 22.48.110) Side Yards: Interior lot: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.20.220 and 22.48.100) Corner lot: 5 feet, except on reversed corner lot, which is 10 feet (22.20.220) Zone R-3: Limited Multiple Residence Permitted Uses: Apartment houses, uses permitted in Zone R-1 and R-2 (22.20.260 - 22.20.290) Minimum Required Area (Unless otherwise specified): 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.52.100) 1452 sq. ft./unit or as otherwise limited by the General Plan (22.20.310 and 22.20.060) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet from existing or excavated grade (22.20.300) Minimum Required Parking: Each bachelor apartment unit, 1 covered space Each efficiency or 1 bedroom apartment unit, 1 1/2 covered spaces Each 2 bedroom apartment unit, 1 1/2 covered + 1/2 uncovered spaces See R-1 and R-2 zones Guest parking required for apartments with a minimum of 10 units at a ratio of 1 space for each 4 units (22.52.1180 and 22.20.330) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: 15 ft., except as provided (22.20.320) Rear Yard: 15 ft. or 20% of average depth of lot, not less than 10 ft. (22.20.320 and 22.48.110) Side Yards: Interior Lot: 5 feet or 10% of average width of narrow lot, but not less than 3 feet (22.20.320 and 22.48.100) Corner Lot: 5 ft., except on reversed corner lot, which is 7 1/2 feet (22.20.320) Zone R-A: Residential Agriculture 216 Permitted Uses: Single family residences Crops (field, tree, bush, berry, row and nursery stock) (22.20.410 - 22.20.440) Minimum Required Area: Unless otherwise specified 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.52.100, 22.52.250) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet (22.20.450) Minimum Required Parking: 2 covered parking spaces per single family residence (22.52.1180) Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard: Same as R-1 (22.20.450) Rear Yard: Same as R-1 (22.20.450) Side Yards: Same as R-1 (22.20.450) Corner Lot: See 22.20.105 regarding development standards for single family residences Zone RPD: Residential Planned Development Permitted Uses: Single family residences (22.20.460A) Planned unit development with approved CUP (22.20.460B) Minimum Required Area (unless otherwise specified) 5000 sq. ft./lot (22.52.100, 22.52.250) 5 acres/development project (22.20.460B1) Density - as established by CUP & zoning (22.20.460B2) Maximum Height Limit: 35 feet (22.20.460) As established by CUP (22.20.460) Minimum Required Parking: Same as R-1 (22.52.1180) Same as R-1 through R-4, depending on type of structure or as required by CUP (22.20.460) Density: As established by CUP and zoning (22.20.460 B2) Standard Yard Requirements and Development Standards: All yards: same as R-1 (22.20.460A) 217 The Regional Planning Commission, in approving a CUP for a planned development, may modify or require greater yards than those required in a normal single family residential development. Building separation is a minimum of 10 feet for 1 and 2 stories. Add 2 feet for each story above 2 stories (22.20.460B) The CUP will regulate the type of structures, open space, building coverage, utilities, landscaping, and other features. 218 C R ES T R D HAWTHORNE BLVD***** SILVER SPUR RDHIGHRIDGE RDCOUNTR Y L N C R E N S H A W B L V D INDIAN PEAK RD ROLLING HILLS RDPALOS VERDES DRDEEP VALLEY DR R A N C H V I E W R D CLUB V I E W L N KINGSPINE RD BUCK S K IN LN S I L V E R S ADDLE LN PONY LNSTEIN HALE NATURE TR ASP E N WY R O C K B L U F F D R E N C A N T O D R W ILLO W W O O D RD PENNSYLVANIA DR SADDLE RDDEERHILL DRCYPRESS W Y E L M D A L E D R DAPPLEGRAY LN SUGARHILL DR IN DIAN VALLEY RDM O C C A S IN L NDUNWOOD RDG A U C H O D R ROLLINGWOOD DR BLUEM O U N D R D MISTY ACRES RDMONTECILLO DRC ONESTOGA D R AURORA DRS A N T A B E L L A R D SORREL LN M A RI NA DRR E A L D R MARLOMA DR STONECREST RD S H A DY VISTA RD COUNTRY M E A D O W RD STRAWBE R R Y L N SANTA CRUZ HIDDEN VALLEY RDC A R R IA G E D R GRA N A D A PALOS VERDES LN SYCAMORE LN ANACAPA LARIAT LN HILLCREST MNR EST R IB O D R EMPTY SADDLE R D BRIDLEWOOD CIRLATIGO LN MASONGATE DROA K T R E E L N SEVILLA P IN T O L N D O R ADO P L CRESTRIDGE RD R O A N W O O D D R CLEAR VISTA DR C O T T O N WOOD CIR Q U AILWOOD DR SEA VIE W DRCROSSFIELD DRS A D D L E B O W L N DOBBIN LNSEAHURST RD H IT C H IN G POST DRPALOMIN O L NW ILD H O R S E LN FOXPOINT LNSANTA ROSA C HADWICK LN B E E C H G ATE DR C E L E STE PL S C O T W O OD D RHORSESHOE LN SILVER AR R O W D R A V OCAD O L NPONDERO S A LN ROLLANDO DRRO LLING MEAD O W S RDTANGLEW O O D LN FERNCR E E K D R WHITLEY COLLINS DR S H A D O W LNSAN MIGUE L EMPTY SADDLE LNPEACOCK LNSPRUCE WYSW EETGRASS LN SILVERBIT LNSI LVE R E A G L E R DHIDD EN L N EASTVA L E R DCRESTA VERDES DR BROK E N B O W L N GOLDEN SPAR PLHAR B O R SIGHT DRSUNNYFIELD DRRAWHIDE LNDRYBANK DRCOLINA LNPLEASANT HILL D RLAZY CREEK LNP E A R TREE LNBRANDING IRON LNSINGLETREE LN STABLE WYBLACKHORSE RDS IL V E R L E AF DRC E R R ITO PLLANT ANA PL TE RRA C E D RMAJORCA HILLCRES T M EADOW COVERED WAG O N L N RANGE HO R S E LNROXCOVE DRSILVER SP RING DR QUARTERHORSE LN S U N D O WN D R SPINNING WHE E L L NACADEMY DRPOTRILLO RD LA CROIX DRRUSTLE R L N BASSWOOD AV CHALMETTE LN***** ***** R O L L A N D O D R ***** EMPTY S ADDLE LNANACAPA ***** FERNCREEK DR * * * * * ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** LARIAT LN ***** ***** HAWTHORNE BLVD***** ***** * * * * * ***** ***** ***** CRENSHAW B L V D***** ***** ***** ***** * * * * * ***** ***** ***** SE A V I EW DRLegend City Boundary Zoning Residental Low Density (1 Acre) Residental Low Density (20,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Medium Density (15,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Medium Density (10,000 Sq. Ft.) Residental Planned Development Commercial General Commercial Office Commercial Limited Commercial Recreation Agricultural Institutional Quarry Open Space Recreation 1 inch = 700 feet City of Rolling Hills EstatesZoning Map 219 220 Download English PDF of SARC for this School District Name Phone Number Superintendent E-mail Address Web Site School Name Street City, State, Zip Phone Number Principal E-mail Address Web Site County-District-School (CDS) Code Last updated: 12/12/2018 Translation Disclaimer Select Language Powered by Translate SARC HomeSARC Home »» Dapplegray ElementaryDapplegray Elementary School Accountability Report Card About This School Contact Information (School Year 2018—19) District Contact Information (School Year 2018—19) Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified (310) 378-9966 Alex Cherniss chernissa@pvpusd.net www.pvpusd.net School Contact Information (School Year 2018—19) Dapplegray Elementary 3011 Palos Verdes Dr. North Rolling Hills Estates, Ca, 90274-7303 310-541-3706 Ms. Gina Stutzel, Principal stutzelg@pvpusd.net http://dapplegray.pvpusd.net 19648656116172 School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2018—19) Dapplegray is committed to providing an educational program that will prepare students for their next level of education. Dapplegray believes each child is a gift and therefore is “gifted” in some way. Staff and Administration agree that a strong literacy curriculum, balanced and enhanced by specialized programs in mathematics, arts, science, history and technology, will best serve our students. An important component of our mission is to implement instructional strategies that will strive to meet individual student learning needs and create a school where students feel 221 Last updated: 12/12/2018 Last updated: 12/12/2018 safe to express their individuality. Creating an environment where the student care for themselves, each other, and their school is an important part of what makes Dapplegray a special place to learn. Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2017—18) Grade Level Number of Students Kindergarten 118 Grade 1 102 Grade 2 114 Grade 3 82 Grade 4 107 Grade 5 116 Total Enrollment 639 Student Enrollment by Student Group (School Year 2017—18) Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment Black or African American 1.1 % American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6 % Asian 18.2 % Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 222 Questions: SARC TEAM | sarc@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0406 California Department of Education 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Student Group Percent of Total Enrollment Filipino 3.0 % Hispanic or Latino 23.9 % Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.3 % White 43.5 % Two or More Races 8.8 % Other 0.6 % Student Group (Other)Percent of Total Enrollment Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 9.1 % English Learners 8.3 % Students with Disabilities 6.9 % Foster Youth 0.2 % 223 LA County | County of Los Angeles, Bu I want to...L ACounty Street Map 0 100 200ft Parcel Details Assessor's ID No:7548-011-018 Address:26941 ROLLING HILLS RD ROLLING HILLS 90274 Property Type:Other Region / Cluster :26 / 26697 Tax Rate Area (TRA):16263 Latest Sale Date: Indicated Sale Price: Recording Date:04/14/2005 Land:$487,985 Improvements:$53,764 Personal Property:$0 Fixtures:$0 Homeowners' Exemption: $0 Real Estate Exemption:$0 Personal Property Exemption: $0 Fixture Exemptions:$0 Property records are kept at the South District Office How frequently is this site updated? (and other FAQs) Property Information View Assessor Map View Index map Recent Sales Information Search for Recent Sales 2019 Roll Values New Horizons Child Development Center 224 225 APPENDIX G LACDPW Sewer Capacity Policy 226 ,CL, '",' :'.,,' ": " ,l", ' ..~,:~(;.( '';~~(,;, October 12, 2005 ~~ o~jj Approved -- 'TO: FROM: Dean Efstathi0l;\ V Dennis Hunte( ~ Land Development Division POLICIES FOR MANAGING AVAILABLE SEWER CAPACITY AND SEWAGE DISCHARGE IN EXCESS OF DESIGN CAPACITY The following will set forth Public Works' policies related to managing sewer infrastructure capacity. Design capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as follows: c: 15" diameter ;: 15" diameter ~ full = 100% capacity (dID) % full = 100% capacity (dID) When Public Works determines there is available capacity in a mainline sewer for infil and redevelopment projects, the remaining available capacity shall be allocated on a first come - first serve basis. Sewer Advisory Committee A Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC) will be formed for the purpose of recommending courses of action to address proposed development connecting to existing sewers that will cause them to be operating beyond their design capacity. The SAC will make their recommendations to Dean Efstathiou, Assistant Director. The SAC will be chaired by Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division and will have representatives from Design and Land Development Divisions. Each Division will appoint a Principal Engineer or Senior Civil Engineer as a representative to the SAC and will convene whenever sewer decisions are required to address developmental impacts. Sewer Maintenance will maintain records of SAC meetings and will prepare recommendations to Administration for approval. The SAC may require other Division representatives to participate on a case-by-case basis when necessary, such as Building and Safety and Programs Development. Divisional Responsibilties Desiqn Division 1. Support activities of the SAC. 2. Prepare sewer area studies when required. 227 Dea n Efstath iou August 25, 2005 Page 2 3. Maintain records/archive of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements. Land Development Division 1. Support activities of the SAC. 2. Impose sewer area study requirements for private developments if necessary and reviewlapprove all submittals. 3. Refer cases to SAC when both sewer area studies and flow measurements indicate that a potential overload situation exists or will exist based on criteria described below. 4. Provide copies of all approved sewer area studies and flow measurements to Design Division for archiving. Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division 1 . Chair the SAC, maintain meeting records and prepare position papers to Administration. 2. Advise the SAC when an overload condition is observed during maintenance activities. 3. Initiate effort to track and map all overload areas within the Consolidated Maintenance District. 4. Keep database of all flow measurement results. Desiqn Criteria 1. Capacity of sewer mainlines less than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.5, expressed as dID = 0.5. 2. Capacity of sewer mainlines equal to or greater than 15" in diameter are considered full (100 percent) when the ratio of the depth of flow (d) over the pipe diameter (D) is equal to 0.75, expressed as dID = 0.75. 228 Dean Efstathiou August 25, 2005 Page 3 3. When an area study indicates that flow conditions based on calculated discharges is between 101 percent to 150 percent of capacity, no flow measurements and no mitigation will be required. If maintenance records warrant, a flow test may be required. 4. When an area study for a development that proposes to increase the density or change the zoning indicates that flow conditions are between 151 to 200 percent of capacity, flow measurements shall be required. If the flow test indicates that the actual flow condition is below 151 percent, no mitigation wil be required. If the flow test results indicate the actual flow is above 151 percent, the case shall be referred to the SAC to evaluate options and make recommendations to Administration for approval. These options may include, but are not limited to: requiring full mitigation from the development, assessing pro-rata shares, creation of a reimbursement district, or establishing a County Improvement (CI) district. AHN:ca P:\LDPUB\SUBPCHECK\SEWER\MISCELLANEOUS\SEWER IN FRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT cc: Administration (Kelly) BUil?ing and Safety (Patel) D,).Design (Kumar) (Itl. ¡Art ¿~ Land Development (D'Antonio, Burge~hong, Witler, Narag) Programs Development (Afshari) , Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance (Del Real, Lehto) 229 APPENDIX H LACDPW Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies 230 Occupancy Abbreviation *Average daily flow Apartment Buildings: Bachelor or Single dwelling units Apt 150 gal/D.U. 1 bedroom dwelling units Apt 200 gal/D.U. 2 bedroom dwelling units Apt 250 gal/D.U. 3 bedroom or more dwelling units Apt 300 gal/D.U. Auditoriums, churches, etc.Aud 5 gal/seat Automobile parking P 25 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Bars, cocktails lounges, etc.Bar 20 gal/seat Commercial Shops & Stores CS 100 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Hospitals (surgical)HS 500 gal/bed Hospitals (convalescent)HC 85 gal/bed Hotels H 150 gal/room Medical Buildings MB 300 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Motels MB 150 gal/unit Office Buildings Off 200 gal/1000 sq ft gross floor area Restaurants, cafeterias, etc.R 50 gal/seat Schools: Elementary or Jr. High S 10 gal/student High Schools HS 15 gal/student Universities or Colleges U 20 gal/student College Dormitories CD 85 gal/student Zone Coefficient (cfs/Acre) Agriculture ----------------------------------0.001 Residential*: R-1 --------------------------------------------0.004 R-2 --------------------------------------------0.008 R-3 --------------------------------------------0.012 R-4 -------------------------------------------- 0.016* Commercial: C-1 through C-4 ---------------------------- 0.015* Heavy Industrial: M-1 through M-4 -------------------------- 0.021* exceed the coefficients shown * Use 0.001 (cfs/unit) for condominiums only Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies *Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow Zoning Coefficients * Individual building, commercial or industrial plant capacities shall be the determining factor when they Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Use for City Hall Use for Dapplegray Elem. School, Peninsula Heritage School, New Horizons Child Dev. Ctr. Use for Botanical Comfort Station Use for Torrance Multi-Family and Institutional Use for Torrance Commercial For large lots, per LACDPW, use a coefficient prorated on 0.001 cfs/ac as follows: 1 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 43,560) = 0.001 cfs/ac 2 ac lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 87,120) = 0.0005 cfs/ac 20,000 sf lot: Coeff. = 0.001 cfs/ac x (43,560 / 20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac 231 APPENDIX I San. Dist. Of LA County Table 1 Loadings for Each Class of Land Use 232 TABLE 1 LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE FLOW (Gallons Per Day) COD (Pounds Per Day) SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Pounds Per Day) R E S I D E N T I A L Single Family Home Parcel 260 1.22 0.59 Duplex Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Triplex Parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Fourplex Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Condominiums Parcel 195 0.92 0.44 Single Family Home Parcel 156 0.73 0.35 (reduced rate) Five Units or More No. of Dwlg. Units 156 0.73 0.35 Mobile Home Parks No. of Spaces 156 0.73 0.35 C O M M E R C I A L Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room 125 0.54 0.28 Store 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Supermarket 1000 ft2 150 2.00 1.00 Shopping Center 1000 ft2 325 3.00 1.17 Regional Mall 1000 ft2 150 2.10 0.77 Office Building 1000 ft2 200 0.86 0.45 Professional Building 1000 ft2 300 1.29 0.68 Restaurant 1000 ft2 1,000 16.68 5.00 Indoor Theatre 1000 ft2 125 0.54 0.28 Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling 1000 ft2 3,700 15.86 8.33 Tunnel - Recycling 1000 ft2 2,700 11.74 6.16 Wand 1000 ft2 700 3.00 1.58 Financial Institution 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Shop 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Animal Kennels 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Service Station 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Auto Sales/Repair 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Wholesale Outlet 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 ft2 25 0.11 0.06 Manufacturing 1000 ft2 200 1.86 0.70 Dry Manufacturing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Lumber Yard 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Warehousing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Open Storage 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Drive-in Theatre 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 Source: Sanitation District of Los Angeles County 233 TABLE 1 (continued) LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE FLOW (Gallons Per Day) COD (Pounds Per Day) SUSPENDED SOLIDS (Pounds Per Day) C O M M E R C I A L Night Club 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 Bowling/Skating 1000 ft2 150 1.76 0.55 Club 1000 ft2 125 0.54 0.27 Auditorium, Amusement 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 Golf Course, Camp, and Park (Structures and Improvements 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Recreational Vehicle Park No. of Spaces 55 0.34 0.14 Convalescent Home Bed 125 0.54 0.28 Laundry 1000 ft2 3,825 16.40 8.61 Mortuary/Cemetery 1000 ft2 100 1.33 0.67 Health Spa, Gymnasium With Showers 1000 ft2 600 2.58 1.35 Without Showers 1000 ft2 300 1.29 0.68 Convention Center, Fairground, Racetrack, Average Daily 10 0.04 0.02 Sports Stadium/Arena Attendance I N S T I T U T I O N A L College/University Student 20 0.09 0.05 Private School 1000 ft2 200 0.86 0.45 Church 1000 ft2 50 0.21 0.11 Use for Tennis Court Site 234 APPENDIX J-1 Sewer Capacity and Design Analysis – Existing Conditions 235 City of Rolling Hills Sewer Service Feasibility Study - Phase II Rolling Hills Road Sewer Analysis - Existing Condition * Calculated using Kutter's Formula with n=0.013 Kutter's Formula Design Capacity keeps three decimal places at least For pipes < 15", Design Capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as 1/2 Full = 100% capacity (d/D)C = 41.65 + 0.00281/S + 1.811/n For pipes > 15", Design Capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as 3/4 Full = 100% capacity (d/D)1 + n/R^(1/2) * (41.65 + 0.00281/S) ** Based on current land use and coefficients (and occupancy) per LA County, (Attach supporting calculations) Q =CA(RS)^(1/2) For 1/2 Full Pipe, R = D/4 ###**% of 1/2 Full Cum. Calc'd Cum. Calc'd 1/2 Full 3/4 Full Area Zoning Calc'd Cum. Calc'd As-Built/Comment Cum. Calc'd Flow /flow depth/Flow Vel.Jurisdiction Street Name MH #MH #Size Slope <15"15" or >(ac)Coeff.Flow Flow Ref. Plan Design Capacity Diameter (fps) 8"=0.667' (cfs) (cfs) or (cfs/ac) (cfs) (cfs) 10"=0.833'Peak Flow See App. K-4 See App. K-4 12"=1'(cfs) Rolling Hills Rd.201 202 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 0.53 0.0022 0.001 0.001 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 0.1%0.019 0.67 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.202 203 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 27.14 0.0022 0.060 0.061 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 3.7%0.104 3.16 RHE 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 3.67 0.016 0.059 0.120 PS005727 Institutional 7.2%0.141 4.01 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.203 207 0.667 0.0688 1.455 n/a 7.79 0.0022 0.017 0.137 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 9.4%0.158 3.87 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.207 210 0.667 0.066 1.425 n/a 3.43 0.0022 0.008 0.144 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 10.1%0.163 3.88 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.210 211 0.667 0.067 1.436 n/a 1.35 0.0022 0.003 0.147 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 10.3%0.164 3.93 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.211 212 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 57.83 0.0022 0.127 0.274 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 23.6%0.241 4.22 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 33.18 0.001 0.033 0.308 Min 1 ac lot size area 26.4%0.254 4.4 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.025 1 0.025 0.333 Dapplegray Elem. School 28.6%0.264 4.51 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.004 1 0.004 0.337 Peninsula Heritage School 28.9%0.266 4.53 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.003 1 0.003 0.340 New Horizons Child Ctr.29.2%0.267 4.54 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 12.233 0.001 0.012 0.352 Comm. Rec.30.2%0.271 4.59 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 2.79 0.001 0.003 0.355 Inst. (Ball Field)30.5%0.272 4.61 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.212 216 0.667 0.026 0.894 n/a 2.97 0.0022 0.007 0.361 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 40.4%0.312 3.88 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.216 218 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 0.001 1 0.001 0.362 PD07160 Botanical Comfort Station 31.5%0.277 4.59 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.218 231 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 7.34 0.0022 0.016 0.378 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 32.9%0.282 4.67 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.231 232 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 0.58 0.0022 0.001 0.380 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 33.0%0.283 4.68 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.232 233 = 2 0.667 0.052 1.265 n/a 0.65 0.0022 0.001 0.381 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 30.1%0.271 4.99 RHE Rolling Hills Rd.2 1 0.667 0.051 1.253 n/a 3.182 0.016 0.051 0.432 SS-116/SS-0043 Multi-Family 34.5%0.289 5.16 Torrance Rolling Hills Rd.1 9 0.667 0.022 0.822 n/a 4.081 0.016 0.065 0.497 SS-116/SS-0043 Multi-Family 60.5%0.382 4.06 Torrance Rolling Hills Rd.9 8 0.667 0.0104 0.565 n/a 1.701 0.015 0.026 0.523 SS-116/SS-0043 Commercial 92.6%0.479 3.16 Torrance Rolling Hills Rd. 8 7 = 2126 0.667 0.1 1.755 n/a 0 0 0.000 0.523 SS-116 / SS-0043 / 5-P-92 29.8% 0.269 6.9 Torrance # Area (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs)## Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac) Left justified values are Areas in (acres). Used for parcel peak flow rates calculated as Area (ac) x Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac). Minimum 20,000 sf lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac * (43,560/20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac Right justified values are peak flow rates in (cfs). MH 202 to MH 203 Institutional based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 211 to MH 212, Dapplegray Elem. School: (10 gpd/student) * 639 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.025 cfs Minimum 1 ac lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac per LACDPW MH 211 to MH 212, Peninsula Heritage School: (10 gpd/student) * 115 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.004 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Community Recreation based on 1 ac. lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac MH 211 to MH 212, New Horizons Child Dev. Ctr.: (10 gpd/student) * 70 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.003 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Inst. (Ball Field) based on 1 ac lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac MH 216 to MH 218, Botanical Comfort Station based on Apt 3 bdr = 300 gpd * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.001 cfs MH 2 to MH 1: City of Torrance Multi-Family based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 1 to MH 9: City of Torrance Multi-Family based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 9 to MH 8: City of Torrance Commercial based on C-1 through C-4: Coeff = 0.015 cfs/ac Design Capacity* Segment Pipe 236 APPENDIX J-2 Sewer Capacity and Design Analysis – Proposed Conditions 237 City of Rolling Hills Sewer Service Feasibility Study - Phase II Rolling Hills Road Sewer Analysis - Proposed Condition * Calculated using Kutter's Formula with n=0.013 Kutter's Formula Design Capacity keeps three decimal places at least For pipes < 15", Design Capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as 1/2 Full = 100% capacity (d/D)C = 41.65 + 0.00281/S + 1.811/n For pipes > 15", Design Capacity of the sewer mainline is defined as 3/4 Full = 100% capacity (d/D)1 + n/R^(1/2) * (41.65 + 0.00281/S) ** Based on current land use and coefficients (and occupancy) per LA County, (Attach supporting calculations) Q =CA(RS)^(1/2) For 1/2 Full Pipe, R = D/4 ###**% of 1/2 Full Cum. Calc'd Cum. Calc'd 1/2 Full 3/4 Full Area Zoning Calc'd Cum. Calc'd As-Built/Comment Cum. Calc'd Flow /flow depth/Flow Vel.Jurisdiction Infosewer ID Street Name MH #MH #Size Slope <15"15" or >(ac)Coeff.Flow Flow Ref. Plan Design Capacity Diameter (fps) 8"=0.667'(cfs)(cfs)or (cfs/ac)(cfs)(cfs) 10"=0.833'Peak Flow See App. K-4 See App. K-4 12"=1'(cfs) Portuguese Bend 98 99 0.667 0.058 1.336 n/a 488.11 0.0005 0.244 0.244 Prelim Plans Min 2 ac lot size area 18.27%0.214 4.46 RH 98 99 0.667 0.058 1.336 n/a 233.51 0.001 0.234 0.478 Min 1 ac lot size area 35.74%0.294 5.57 98 99 0.667 0.058 1.336 n/a 0.014 1 0.014 0.492 Tennis Ct. Area 36.79%0.298 5.63 98 99 0.667 0.058 1.336 n/a 0.01 1 0.010 0.502 #City Hall 37.54%0.301 5.66 Rolling Hills Rd.99 100 0.667 0.061 1.370 n/a 0 0 0.000 0.502 Prelim Plans 36.60%0.298 5.76 RH Rolling Hills Rd.100 201 0.667 0.0506 1.248 n/a 0 0 0.000 0.502 Prelim Plans 40.19%0.311 5.41 RHE 5 Rolling Hills Rd.201 202 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 0.53 0.0022 0.001 0.503 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 30.4%0.272 6.54 RHE 7 Rolling Hills Rd.202 203 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 27.14 0.0022 0.060 0.562 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 34.0%0.287 6.8 RHE 0.667 0.0888 1.654 n/a 3.67 0.016 0.059 0.621 PS005727 Institutional 37.6%0.301 7.01 RHE 8 Rolling Hills Rd.203 207 0.667 0.0688 1.455 n/a 7.79 0.0022 0.017 0.638 PS005727 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 43.9%0.325 6.49 RHE 11 Rolling Hills Rd.207 210 0.667 0.066 1.425 n/a 3.43 0.0022 0.008 0.646 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 45.3%0.33 6.42 RHE 3 Rolling Hills Rd.210 211 0.667 0.067 1.436 n/a 1.35 0.0022 0.003 0.649 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 45.2%0.33 6.46 RHE 10 Rolling Hills Rd.211 212 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 57.83 0.0022 0.127 0.776 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 66.7%0.402 5.9 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 33.18 0.001 0.033 0.809 Min 1 ac lot size area 69.5%0.41 5.99 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.025 1 0.025 0.834 Dapplegray Elem. School 71.7%0.417 6.04 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.004 1 0.004 0.838 Peninsula Heritage School 72.0%0.418 6.05 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 0.003 1 0.003 0.841 New Horizons Child Ctr.72.3%0.419 6.06 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 12.233 0.001 0.012 0.853 Comm. Rec.73.3%0.422 6.08 RHE 0.667 0.044 1.164 n/a 2.79 0.001 0.003 0.856 Inst. (Ball Field)73.6%0.423 6.09 RHE 1 Rolling Hills Rd.212 216 0.667 0.026 0.894 n/a 2.97 0.0022 0.007 0.863 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 96.5%0.49 5.07 RHE 4 Rolling Hills Rd.216 218 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 0.001 1 0.001 0.864 PD07160 Botanical Comfort Station 75.1%0.428 6.06 RHE 9 Rolling Hills Rd.218 231 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 7.34 0.0022 0.016 0.880 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 76.5%0.432 6.09 RHE 6 Rolling Hills Rd.231 232 0.667 0.043 1.150 n/a 0.58 0.0022 0.001 0.881 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 76.6%0.432 6.1 RHE 2 Rolling Hills Rd.232 233 = 2 0.667 0.052 1.265 n/a 0.65 0.0022 0.001 0.883 PD07160 Min 20,000 sf lot size area 69.8%0.411 6.52 RHE 12 Rolling Hills Rd.2 1 0.667 0.051 1.253 n/a 3.182 0.016 0.051 0.934 SS-116/SS-0043 Multi-Family 74.5%0.426 6.58 Torrance 13 Rolling Hills Rd.1 9 0.667 0.022 0.822 n/a 4.081 0.016 0.065 0.999 SS-116/SS-0043 Multi-Family 121.5%0.56 4.96 Torrance 1 9 0.833 0.022 1.525 n/a 0.999 Prelim Plans Upgrade to 10"65.5%0.398 4.94 Torrance 14 Rolling Hills Rd.9 8 0.667 0.0104 0.565 n/a 1.701 0.015 0.026 1.024 SS-116/SS-0043 Commercial 181.4%0.733 3.73 Torrance 9 8 0.833 0.0104 1.047 n/a 1.024 Prelim Plans Upgrade to 10"97.8%0.493 3.82 Torrance 9 8 1 0.0104 1.736 n/a 1.024 Prelim Plans Upgrade to 12"59.0%0.376 3.79 Torrance 15 Rolling Hills Rd.8 7 = 2126 0.667 0.1 1.755 n/a 0 0 0.000 1.024 SS-116 / SS-0043 / 5-P-92 58.4%0.375 8.55 Torrance 8 7 = 2126 0.833 0.1 3.254 n/a 1.024 Prelim Plans Upgrade to 10"31.5%0.276 8.37 Torrance 8 7 = 2126 1 0.1 5.393 n/a 1.024 Prelim Plans Upgrade to 12"19.0%0.216 8.2 Torrance Per LA County Assessor, Parcel 7569-003-904 (City Hall) = 1.22 ac = 53,143 sf Per LA County Assessor, Parcel 7569-015-900 (Tennis Court Site) = 37,460 sf # Area (ac) or Peak Flow (cfs)## Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac) Left justified values are Areas in (acres). Used for parcel peak flow rates calculated as Area (ac) x Zoning Coeff. (cfs/ac). Minimum 2 ac lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac/2 = 0.0005 cfs/ac Right justified values are peak flow rates in (cfs). Minimum 1 ac lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac per LACDPW MH 98 to MH 99, Tennis Ct. based on Golf Course, Camp, and Park: 100 gpd/1000 sf = (100 gpd*37,460 sf/1000 sf)*2.5*(1 cfs/646317 gpd) = 0.014 cfs Minimum 20,000 sf lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac * (43,560/20,000) = 0.0022 cfs/ac MH 98 to MH 99, City Hall based on Office Bldg: 200 gpd/1000 sf gr. flr. area: 200 gpd*13,000 sf/1000 sf) *2.5*(1 cfs/646317 gpd) = 0.010 cfs MH 202 to MH 203 Institutional based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 211 to MH 212, Dapplegray Elem. School: (10 gpd/student) * 639 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.025 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Community Recreation based on 1 ac. lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac MH 211 to MH 212, Peninsula Heritage School: (10 gpd/student) * 115 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.004 cfs MH 211 to MH 212, Inst. (Ball Field) based on 1 ac lot size: Coeff = 0.001 cfs/ac MH 211 to MH 212, New Horizons Child Dev. Ctr.: (10 gpd/student) * 70 students * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.003 cfs MH 2 to MH 1: City of Torrance Multi-Family based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 216 to MH 218, Botanical Comfort Station based on Apt 3 bdr = 300 gpd * 2.5 * (1 cfs / 646317 gpd) = 0.001 cfs MH 1 to MH 9: City of Torrance Multi-Family based on R-4: Coeff = 0.016 cfs/ac MH 9 to MH 8: City of Torrance Commercial based on C-1 through C-4: Coeff = 0.015 cfs/ac Design Capacity* Segment Pipe 238 APPENDIX K-1 Design Capacity Calculations – Existing Conditions 239 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.654 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.59 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01898 ft/ft Velocity 9.46 ft/s Velocity Head 1.39 ft Specific Energy 1.73 ft Froude Number 3.26 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.02222 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 201 to MH 202 3/10/2020 2:58:43 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 240 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.654 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.59 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01898 ft/ft Velocity 9.46 ft/s Velocity Head 1.39 ft Specific Energy 1.73 ft Froude Number 3.26 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.02222 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 202 to MH 203 3/10/2020 2:59:38 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 241 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06880 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.455 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.57 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01555 ft/ft Velocity 8.33 ft/s Velocity Head 1.08 ft Specific Energy 1.41 ft Froude Number 2.87 Maximum Discharge 3.18 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.91 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01721 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 203 to MH 207 3/10/2020 3:00:29 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 242 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06600 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.425 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.56 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01512 ft/ft Velocity 8.16 ft/s Velocity Head 1.03 ft Specific Energy 1.37 ft Froude Number 2.81 Maximum Discharge 3.12 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.85 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01651 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 207 to MH 210 3/10/2020 3:01:11 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 243 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06700 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.436 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.56 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01528 ft/ft Velocity 8.22 ft/s Velocity Head 1.05 ft Specific Energy 1.38 ft Froude Number 2.83 Maximum Discharge 3.14 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.87 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01676 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 210 to MH 211 3/10/2020 3:01:58 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 244 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.164 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01210 ft/ft Velocity 6.66 ft/s Velocity Head 0.69 ft Specific Energy 1.02 ft Froude Number 2.29 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01100 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 3/10/2020 3:02:43 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 245 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02600 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 0.894 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.45 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01003 ft/ft Velocity 5.12 ft/s Velocity Head 0.41 ft Specific Energy 0.74 ft Froude Number 1.76 Maximum Discharge 1.96 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.79 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00650 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 212 to MH 216 3/10/2020 3:03:23 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 246 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.150 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01197 ft/ft Velocity 6.58 ft/s Velocity Head 0.67 ft Specific Energy 1.01 ft Froude Number 2.27 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01075 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 216 to MH 218 3/10/2020 3:04:01 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 247 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.150 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01197 ft/ft Velocity 6.58 ft/s Velocity Head 0.67 ft Specific Energy 1.01 ft Froude Number 2.27 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01075 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 218 to MH 231 3/10/2020 3:04:37 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 248 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.150 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01197 ft/ft Velocity 6.58 ft/s Velocity Head 0.67 ft Specific Energy 1.01 ft Froude Number 2.27 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01075 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 231 to MH 232 3/10/2020 3:05:10 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 249 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05200 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.265 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.53 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01310 ft/ft Velocity 7.24 ft/s Velocity Head 0.81 ft Specific Energy 1.15 ft Froude Number 2.49 Maximum Discharge 2.77 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.53 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01301 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 232 to MH 233 = 2 3/10/2020 3:05:53 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 250 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05100 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.253 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.53 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01303 ft/ft Velocity 7.17 ft/s Velocity Head 0.80 ft Specific Energy 1.13 ft Froude Number 2.47 Maximum Discharge 2.74 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01276 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 2 to MH 1 3/10/2020 3:06:39 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 251 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02200 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 0.822 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00958 ft/ft Velocity 4.71 ft/s Velocity Head 0.34 ft Specific Energy 0.68 ft Froude Number 1.62 Maximum Discharge 1.80 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.64 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00556 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 1 to MH 9 (8") 3/10/2020 3:07:36 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 252 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 0.565 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.35 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00858 ft/ft Velocity 3.23 ft/s Velocity Head 0.16 ft Specific Energy 0.50 ft Froude Number 1.11 Maximum Discharge 1.24 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.13 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00262 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 8" 3/10/2020 3:09:25 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 253 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.755 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.61 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.02104 ft/ft Velocity 10.04 ft/s Velocity Head 1.57 ft Specific Energy 1.90 ft Froude Number 3.46 Maximum Discharge 3.84 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.02503 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 8" 3/10/2020 3:10:26 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 254 APPENDIX K-2 Design Capacity Calculations – Proposed Conditions 255 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05800 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.336 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.55 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01394 ft/ft Velocity 7.65 ft/s Velocity Head 0.91 ft Specific Energy 1.24 ft Froude Number 2.63 Maximum Discharge 2.92 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.67 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01451 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH98 to MH99 Design Capacity 3/10/2020 2:54:23 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Half Full Capacity Half Full 256 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06100 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.370 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.55 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01439 ft/ft Velocity 7.84 ft/s Velocity Head 0.96 ft Specific Energy 1.29 ft Froude Number 2.70 Maximum Discharge 3.00 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.74 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01526 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 99 to MH 100 3/10/2020 2:56:22 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 257 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05060 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.3335 ft Diameter 0.667 ft Results Discharge 1.248 ft³/s Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1668 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.53 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.01298 ft/ft Velocity 7.14 ft/s Velocity Head 0.79 ft Specific Energy 1.13 ft Froude Number 2.46 Maximum Discharge 2.73 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.50 ft³/s Slope Full 0.01266 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 100 to MH 201 3/10/2020 2:57:45 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 258 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02200 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.4165 ft Diameter 0.833 ft Results Discharge 1.525 ft³/s Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.31 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2083 ft Top Width 0.83 ft Critical Depth 0.55 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00877 ft/ft Velocity 5.60 ft/s Velocity Head 0.49 ft Specific Energy 0.90 ft Froude Number 1.73 Maximum Discharge 3.33 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.05 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00552 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 1 to MH 9 - 10" 3/10/2020 3:12:04 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 259 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.4165 ft Diameter 0.833 ft Results Discharge 1.047 ft³/s Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.31 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2083 ft Top Width 0.83 ft Critical Depth 0.46 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00765 ft/ft Velocity 3.84 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 0.65 ft Froude Number 1.18 Maximum Discharge 2.29 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.09 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00263 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 10" 3/10/2020 3:12:58 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 260 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.5000 ft Diameter 1.000 ft Results Discharge 1.736 ft³/s Flow Area 0.39 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.57 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Top Width 1.00 ft Critical Depth 0.56 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00706 ft/ft Velocity 4.42 ft/s Velocity Head 0.30 ft Specific Energy 0.80 ft Froude Number 1.24 Maximum Discharge 3.79 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.47 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00263 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 12" 3/10/2020 3:15:54 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 261 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.4165 ft Diameter 0.833 ft Results Discharge 3.254 ft³/s Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.31 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2083 ft Top Width 0.83 ft Critical Depth 0.77 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.02097 ft/ft Velocity 11.94 ft/s Velocity Head 2.22 ft Specific Energy 2.63 ft Froude Number 3.68 Maximum Discharge 7.10 ft³/s Discharge Full 6.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.02503 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 10" 3/10/2020 3:13:56 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 262 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.5000 ft Diameter 1.000 ft Results Discharge 5.393 ft³/s Flow Area 0.39 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.57 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.2500 ft Top Width 1.00 ft Critical Depth 0.93 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.02107 ft/ft Velocity 13.73 ft/s Velocity Head 2.93 ft Specific Energy 3.43 ft Froude Number 3.86 Maximum Discharge 11.76 ft³/s Discharge Full 10.79 ft³/s Slope Full 0.02509 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 12" 3/10/2020 3:15:01 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page Capacity Half Full Half Full 263 APPENDIX K-3 d/D and Velocity Calculations – Existing Conditions 264 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.001 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.0124 ft Flow Area 0.00 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.18 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0082 ft Top Width 0.18 ft Critical Depth 0.01 ft Percent Full 1.9 % Critical Slope 0.04382 ft/ft Velocity 0.67 ft/s Velocity Head 0.01 ft Specific Energy 0.02 ft Froude Number 1.30 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00000 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 1.86 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 201 to MH 202 3/10/2020 3:35:05 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 265 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.061 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.0695 ft Flow Area 0.02 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.44 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0441 ft Top Width 0.41 ft Critical Depth 0.11 ft Percent Full 10.4 % Critical Slope 0.01032 ft/ft Velocity 3.16 ft/s Velocity Head 0.15 ft Specific Energy 0.22 ft Froude Number 2.56 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00005 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 10.42 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 202 to MH 203 Q=0.061 3/10/2020 3:37:10 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 266 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.120 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.0938 ft Flow Area 0.03 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.51 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0584 ft Top Width 0.46 ft Critical Depth 0.16 ft Percent Full 14.1 % Critical Slope 0.00906 ft/ft Velocity 4.01 ft/s Velocity Head 0.25 ft Specific Energy 0.34 ft Froude Number 2.78 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00015 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 14.07 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 202 to MH 203 Q = 0.120 3/10/2020 3:38:12 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 267 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.137 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1053 ft Flow Area 0.04 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.55 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0650 ft Top Width 0.49 ft Critical Depth 0.17 ft Percent Full 15.8 % Critical Slope 0.00887 ft/ft Velocity 3.87 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 0.34 ft Froude Number 2.53 Maximum Discharge 3.18 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.91 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00019 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 15.79 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 203 to MH 207 3/10/2020 3:39:35 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 268 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06600 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.144 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1088 ft Flow Area 0.04 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.55 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0669 ft Top Width 0.49 ft Critical Depth 0.17 ft Percent Full 16.3 % Critical Slope 0.00885 ft/ft Velocity 3.88 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 0.34 ft Froude Number 2.50 Maximum Discharge 3.12 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.85 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00020 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 16.30 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 207 to MH 210 3/10/2020 3:40:28 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 269 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06700 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.147 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1094 ft Flow Area 0.04 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.56 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0672 ft Top Width 0.49 ft Critical Depth 0.18 ft Percent Full 16.4 % Critical Slope 0.00871 ft/ft Velocity 3.93 ft/s Velocity Head 0.24 ft Specific Energy 0.35 ft Froude Number 2.52 Maximum Discharge 3.14 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.87 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00021 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 16.40 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 210 MH 211 3/10/2020 3:41:28 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 270 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.274 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1608 ft Flow Area 0.06 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.68 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0948 ft Top Width 0.57 ft Critical Depth 0.24 ft Percent Full 24.1 % Critical Slope 0.00818 ft/ft Velocity 4.22 ft/s Velocity Head 0.28 ft Specific Energy 0.44 ft Froude Number 2.21 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00065 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 24.10 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.274 3/10/2020 3:42:34 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 271 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.308 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1697 ft Flow Area 0.07 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.71 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0993 ft Top Width 0.58 ft Critical Depth 0.26 ft Percent Full 25.4 % Critical Slope 0.00815 ft/ft Velocity 4.40 ft/s Velocity Head 0.30 ft Specific Energy 0.47 ft Froude Number 2.23 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00082 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 25.45 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.308 3/10/2020 3:43:26 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 272 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.333 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1761 ft Flow Area 0.07 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.72 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1025 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.27 ft Percent Full 26.4 % Critical Slope 0.00822 ft/ft Velocity 4.51 ft/s Velocity Head 0.32 ft Specific Energy 0.49 ft Froude Number 2.25 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00094 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 26.41 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.333 3/10/2020 3:44:16 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 273 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.337 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.177 ft Flow Area 0.07 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.72 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.103 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.27 ft Percent Full 26.6 % Critical Slope 0.00810 ft/ft Velocity 4.53 ft/s Velocity Head 0.32 ft Specific Energy 0.50 ft Froude Number 2.25 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00097 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 26.56 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.337 3/13/2020 3:40:43 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 274 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.340 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.178 ft Flow Area 0.07 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.72 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.103 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.27 ft Percent Full 26.7 % Critical Slope 0.00812 ft/ft Velocity 4.54 ft/s Velocity Head 0.32 ft Specific Energy 0.50 ft Froude Number 2.25 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00098 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 26.67 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.340 3/13/2020 3:42:15 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 275 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.352 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.181 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.73 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.105 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Percent Full 27.1 % Critical Slope 0.00818 ft/ft Velocity 4.59 ft/s Velocity Head 0.33 ft Specific Energy 0.51 ft Froude Number 2.25 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00105 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.13 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.352 3/13/2020 3:44:27 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 276 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.355 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.182 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.73 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.105 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Percent Full 27.2 % Critical Slope 0.00819 ft/ft Velocity 4.61 ft/s Velocity Head 0.33 ft Specific Energy 0.51 ft Froude Number 2.25 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00106 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.24 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.355 3/13/2020 3:45:53 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 277 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02600 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.361 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.208 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.79 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.118 ft Top Width 0.62 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Percent Full 31.2 % Critical Slope 0.00818 ft/ft Velocity 3.88 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 0.44 ft Froude Number 1.76 Maximum Discharge 1.96 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.79 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00110 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 31.20 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 212 to MH 216 3/13/2020 3:48:02 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 278 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.362 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.185 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.74 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.107 ft Top Width 0.60 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Percent Full 27.7 % Critical Slope 0.00819 ft/ft Velocity 4.59 ft/s Velocity Head 0.33 ft Specific Energy 0.51 ft Froude Number 2.23 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00110 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.68 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 216 to MH 218 3/13/2020 3:49:18 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 279 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.378 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.188 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.75 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.108 ft Top Width 0.60 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Percent Full 28.2 % Critical Slope 0.00824 ft/ft Velocity 4.67 ft/s Velocity Head 0.34 ft Specific Energy 0.53 ft Froude Number 2.24 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00120 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 28.22 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 218 to MH 231 3/13/2020 3:50:32 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 280 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.380 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.189 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.75 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.109 ft Top Width 0.60 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Percent Full 28.3 % Critical Slope 0.00825 ft/ft Velocity 4.68 ft/s Velocity Head 0.34 ft Specific Energy 0.53 ft Froude Number 2.24 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00122 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 28.28 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 231 to MH 232 3/13/2020 3:51:30 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 281 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05200 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.381 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.181 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.73 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.105 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Percent Full 27.1 % Critical Slope 0.00814 ft/ft Velocity 4.99 ft/s Velocity Head 0.39 ft Specific Energy 0.57 ft Froude Number 2.45 Maximum Discharge 2.77 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.53 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00122 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.07 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 232 to MH 233 = 2 3/13/2020 3:53:01 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 282 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05100 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.432 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.193 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.76 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.111 ft Top Width 0.60 ft Critical Depth 0.31 ft Percent Full 28.9 % Critical Slope 0.00820 ft/ft Velocity 5.16 ft/s Velocity Head 0.41 ft Specific Energy 0.61 ft Froude Number 2.44 Maximum Discharge 2.74 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00155 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 28.92 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 2 to MH 1 3/13/2020 3:54:44 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 283 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02200 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.497 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.255 ft Flow Area 0.12 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.89 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.138 ft Top Width 0.65 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 38.2 % Critical Slope 0.00832 ft/ft Velocity 4.06 ft/s Velocity Head 0.26 ft Specific Energy 0.51 ft Froude Number 1.64 Maximum Discharge 1.80 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.64 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00205 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 38.16 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 1 to MH 9 3/13/2020 3:56:08 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 284 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.523 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.319 ft Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.02 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.162 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.34 ft Percent Full 47.9 % Critical Slope 0.00842 ft/ft Velocity 3.16 ft/s Velocity Head 0.16 ft Specific Energy 0.47 ft Froude Number 1.12 Maximum Discharge 1.24 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.13 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00228 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 47.89 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 3/13/2020 3:57:19 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 285 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.523 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.180 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.73 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.104 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.34 ft Percent Full 26.9 % Critical Slope 0.00841 ft/ft Velocity 6.90 ft/s Velocity Head 0.74 ft Specific Energy 0.92 ft Froude Number 3.40 Maximum Discharge 3.84 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00228 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 26.93 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 3/13/2020 3:58:22 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 286 APPENDIX K-4 d/D and Velocity Calculations – Proposed Conditions 287 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05800 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.244 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1426 ft Flow Area 0.05 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.64 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.0853 ft Top Width 0.55 ft Critical Depth 0.23 ft Percent Full 21.4 % Critical Slope 0.00831 ft/ft Velocity 4.46 ft/s Velocity Head 0.31 ft Specific Energy 0.45 ft Froude Number 2.49 Maximum Discharge 2.92 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.67 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00052 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 21.37 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 98 to MH 99 Q = 0.244 3/10/2020 3:57:38 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 288 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05800 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.478 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1962 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.76 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1122 ft Top Width 0.61 ft Critical Depth 0.32 ft Percent Full 29.4 % Critical Slope 0.00834 ft/ft Velocity 5.57 ft/s Velocity Head 0.48 ft Specific Energy 0.68 ft Froude Number 2.61 Maximum Discharge 2.92 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.67 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00190 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 29.42 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 98 to MH 99 Q = 0.478 3/10/2020 3:59:05 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 289 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05800 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.492 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1989 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.77 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1135 ft Top Width 0.61 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 29.8 % Critical Slope 0.00839 ft/ft Velocity 5.63 ft/s Velocity Head 0.49 ft Specific Energy 0.69 ft Froude Number 2.62 Maximum Discharge 2.92 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.67 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00201 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 29.82 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 98 to MH 99 Q = 0.492 3/10/2020 3:59:54 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 290 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05800 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.502 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2009 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.77 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1144 ft Top Width 0.61 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 30.1 % Critical Slope 0.00832 ft/ft Velocity 5.66 ft/s Velocity Head 0.50 ft Specific Energy 0.70 ft Froude Number 2.62 Maximum Discharge 2.92 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.67 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00210 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 30.11 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 98 to MH 99 Q = 0.502 3/10/2020 4:00:39 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 291 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06100 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.502 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1984 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.77 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1132 ft Top Width 0.61 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 29.8 % Critical Slope 0.00833 ft/ft Velocity 5.76 ft/s Velocity Head 0.52 ft Specific Energy 0.71 ft Froude Number 2.69 Maximum Discharge 3.00 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.74 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00210 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 29.75 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 99 to MH 100 3/10/2020 4:01:35 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 292 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05060 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.502 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2077 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.79 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1176 ft Top Width 0.62 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 31.1 % Critical Slope 0.00834 ft/ft Velocity 5.41 ft/s Velocity Head 0.45 ft Specific Energy 0.66 ft Froude Number 2.46 Maximum Discharge 2.73 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.50 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00210 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 31.14 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 100 to MH 201 3/10/2020 4:02:23 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 293 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.503 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1814 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.73 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1051 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.33 ft Percent Full 27.2 % Critical Slope 0.00834 ft/ft Velocity 6.54 ft/s Velocity Head 0.66 ft Specific Energy 0.85 ft Froude Number 3.20 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00210 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.20 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 201 to MH 202 3/10/2020 4:03:10 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 294 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.562 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.1911 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.75 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1098 ft Top Width 0.60 ft Critical Depth 0.35 ft Percent Full 28.7 % Critical Slope 0.00856 ft/ft Velocity 6.80 ft/s Velocity Head 0.72 ft Specific Energy 0.91 ft Froude Number 3.24 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00260 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 28.65 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 202 to MH 203 Q = 0.562 3/10/2020 4:04:22 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 295 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.08880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.621 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2008 ft Flow Area 0.09 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.77 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1144 ft Top Width 0.61 ft Critical Depth 0.37 ft Percent Full 30.1 % Critical Slope 0.00872 ft/ft Velocity 7.01 ft/s Velocity Head 0.76 ft Specific Energy 0.96 ft Froude Number 3.25 Maximum Discharge 3.62 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.31 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00317 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 30.11 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 202 to MH 203 Q = 0.621 3/10/2020 4:05:09 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 296 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06880 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.638 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2165 ft Flow Area 0.10 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.81 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1216 ft Top Width 0.62 ft Critical Depth 0.38 ft Percent Full 32.5 % Critical Slope 0.00879 ft/ft Velocity 6.49 ft/s Velocity Head 0.65 ft Specific Energy 0.87 ft Froude Number 2.88 Maximum Discharge 3.18 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.91 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00335 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 32.46 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 203 to MH 207 3/10/2020 4:06:11 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 297 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06600 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.646 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2202 ft Flow Area 0.10 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.82 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1232 ft Top Width 0.63 ft Critical Depth 0.38 ft Percent Full 33.0 % Critical Slope 0.00882 ft/ft Velocity 6.42 ft/s Velocity Head 0.64 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 2.83 Maximum Discharge 3.12 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.85 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00343 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 33.01 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 207 to MH 210 3/10/2020 4:07:00 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 298 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.06700 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.649 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2199 ft Flow Area 0.10 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.82 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1231 ft Top Width 0.63 ft Critical Depth 0.38 ft Percent Full 33.0 % Critical Slope 0.00880 ft/ft Velocity 6.46 ft/s Velocity Head 0.65 ft Specific Energy 0.87 ft Froude Number 2.85 Maximum Discharge 3.14 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.87 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00346 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 32.97 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 210 to MH 211 3/10/2020 4:07:44 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 299 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.776 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2682 ft Flow Area 0.13 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.92 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1434 ft Top Width 0.65 ft Critical Depth 0.42 ft Percent Full 40.2 % Critical Slope 0.00936 ft/ft Velocity 5.90 ft/s Velocity Head 0.54 ft Specific Energy 0.81 ft Froude Number 2.32 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00495 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 40.21 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.776 3/10/2020 4:08:47 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 300 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.809 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2737 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.93 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1456 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 41.0 % Critical Slope 0.00955 ft/ft Velocity 5.99 ft/s Velocity Head 0.56 ft Specific Energy 0.83 ft Froude Number 2.33 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00538 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 41.03 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.809 3/10/2020 4:09:31 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 301 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.834 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.2782 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.94 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.1473 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 41.7 % Critical Slope 0.00965 ft/ft Velocity 6.04 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Energy 0.85 ft Froude Number 2.33 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00572 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.0000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.0000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 41.70 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.834 3/10/2020 4:10:20 PM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 302 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.838 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.279 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.94 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.148 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 41.8 % Critical Slope 0.00968 ft/ft Velocity 6.05 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Energy 0.85 ft Froude Number 2.33 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00577 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 41.81 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.838 3/13/2020 4:03:24 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 303 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.841 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.279 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.94 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.148 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 41.9 % Critical Slope 0.00970 ft/ft Velocity 6.06 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Energy 0.85 ft Froude Number 2.33 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00582 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 41.89 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.841 3/13/2020 4:04:37 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 304 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.853 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.282 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.94 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.149 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 42.2 % Critical Slope 0.00977 ft/ft Velocity 6.08 ft/s Velocity Head 0.58 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 2.33 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00598 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 42.21 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.853 3/13/2020 4:05:45 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 305 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04400 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.856 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.282 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.94 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.149 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 42.3 % Critical Slope 0.00979 ft/ft Velocity 6.09 ft/s Velocity Head 0.58 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 2.32 Maximum Discharge 2.55 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.33 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00603 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 42.30 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 211 to MH 212 Q = 0.856 3/13/2020 4:06:52 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 306 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02600 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.863 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.327 ft Flow Area 0.17 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.03 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.165 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 49.0 % Critical Slope 0.00983 ft/ft Velocity 5.07 ft/s Velocity Head 0.40 ft Specific Energy 0.73 ft Froude Number 1.77 Maximum Discharge 1.96 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.79 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00612 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 48.99 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 212 to MH 216 3/13/2020 4:07:59 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 307 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.864 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.285 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.95 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.150 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 42.8 % Critical Slope 0.00984 ft/ft Velocity 6.06 ft/s Velocity Head 0.57 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 2.30 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00614 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 42.75 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 216 to MH 218 3/13/2020 4:09:22 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 308 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.880 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.288 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.96 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.151 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 43.2 % Critical Slope 0.00993 ft/ft Velocity 6.09 ft/s Velocity Head 0.58 ft Specific Energy 0.87 ft Froude Number 2.30 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00629 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 43.16 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 218 to MH 231 3/13/2020 4:10:13 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 309 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.04300 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.881 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.288 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.96 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.151 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 43.2 % Critical Slope 0.00994 ft/ft Velocity 6.10 ft/s Velocity Head 0.58 ft Specific Energy 0.87 ft Froude Number 2.30 Maximum Discharge 2.52 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.30 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00631 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 43.19 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 231 to MH 232 3/13/2020 4:11:04 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 310 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05200 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.883 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.274 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.93 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.146 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.45 ft Percent Full 41.1 % Critical Slope 0.00996 ft/ft Velocity 6.52 ft/s Velocity Head 0.66 ft Specific Energy 0.94 ft Froude Number 2.53 Maximum Discharge 2.77 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.53 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00634 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 41.11 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 232 to MH 233 = 2 3/13/2020 4:12:58 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 311 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.05100 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.934 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.284 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.95 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.150 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.46 ft Percent Full 42.6 % Critical Slope 0.01025 ft/ft Velocity 6.58 ft/s Velocity Head 0.67 ft Specific Energy 0.96 ft Froude Number 2.50 Maximum Discharge 2.74 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00709 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 42.59 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 2 to MH 1 3/13/2020 4:14:31 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 312 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02200 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 0.999 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.373 ft Flow Area 0.20 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.13 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.178 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.47 ft Percent Full 56.0 % Critical Slope 0.01073 ft/ft Velocity 4.96 ft/s Velocity Head 0.38 ft Specific Energy 0.76 ft Froude Number 1.59 Maximum Discharge 1.80 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.64 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00811 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 55.98 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 1 to MH 9 - 8" 3/13/2020 4:16:06 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 313 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.02200 ft/ft Diameter 0.833 ft Discharge 0.999 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.331 ft Flow Area 0.20 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.14 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.178 ft Top Width 0.82 ft Critical Depth 0.44 ft Percent Full 39.8 % Critical Slope 0.00758 ft/ft Velocity 4.94 ft/s Velocity Head 0.38 ft Specific Energy 0.71 ft Froude Number 1.75 Maximum Discharge 3.33 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.05 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00239 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 39.78 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 1 to MH 9 - 10" 3/13/2020 4:17:30 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 314 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.489 ft Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.37 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.200 ft Top Width 0.59 ft Critical Depth 0.48 ft Percent Full 73.3 % Critical Slope 0.01087 ft/ft Velocity 3.73 ft/s Velocity Head 0.22 ft Specific Energy 0.71 ft Froude Number 0.96 Maximum Discharge 1.24 ft³/s Discharge Full 1.13 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00852 ft/ft Flow Type SubCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 73.32 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 8" 3/13/2020 4:19:40 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 315 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Diameter 0.833 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.411 ft Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.30 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.207 ft Top Width 0.83 ft Critical Depth 0.45 ft Percent Full 49.3 % Critical Slope 0.00763 ft/ft Velocity 3.82 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energy 0.64 ft Froude Number 1.19 Maximum Discharge 2.29 ft³/s Discharge Full 2.09 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00251 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 49.35 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 10" 3/13/2020 4:20:36 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 316 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.01040 ft/ft Diameter 1.000 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.376 ft Flow Area 0.27 ft² Wetted Perimeter 1.32 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.205 ft Top Width 0.97 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 37.6 % Critical Slope 0.00652 ft/ft Velocity 3.79 ft/s Velocity Head 0.22 ft Specific Energy 0.60 ft Froude Number 1.27 Maximum Discharge 3.79 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.47 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00094 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 37.61 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 9 to MH 8 - 12" 3/13/2020 4:21:34 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 317 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Diameter 0.667 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.250 ft Flow Area 0.12 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.88 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.136 ft Top Width 0.65 ft Critical Depth 0.48 ft Percent Full 37.5 % Critical Slope 0.01086 ft/ft Velocity 8.55 ft/s Velocity Head 1.14 ft Specific Energy 1.39 ft Froude Number 3.50 Maximum Discharge 3.84 ft³/s Discharge Full 3.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00852 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 37.52 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 8" 3/13/2020 4:23:13 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 318 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Diameter 0.833 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.230 ft Flow Area 0.12 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.92 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.133 ft Top Width 0.74 ft Critical Depth 0.45 ft Percent Full 27.6 % Critical Slope 0.00763 ft/ft Velocity 8.37 ft/s Velocity Head 1.09 ft Specific Energy 1.32 ft Froude Number 3.64 Maximum Discharge 7.10 ft³/s Discharge Full 6.51 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00251 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 27.58 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 10" 3/13/2020 4:24:13 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 319 Project Description Friction Method Kutter Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.10000 ft/ft Diameter 1.000 ft Discharge 1.024 ft³/s Results Normal Depth 0.216 ft Flow Area 0.12 ft² Wetted Perimeter 0.97 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.129 ft Top Width 0.82 ft Critical Depth 0.43 ft Percent Full 21.6 % Critical Slope 0.00653 ft/ft Velocity 8.20 ft/s Velocity Head 1.05 ft Specific Energy 1.26 ft Froude Number 3.71 Maximum Discharge 11.76 ft³/s Discharge Full 10.79 ft³/s Slope Full 0.00094 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.000 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.000 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 21.60 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s MH 8 to MH 7 = 2126 - 12" 3/13/2020 4:25:08 AM Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterBentley FlowMaster V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 2of1Page d/D Velocity 320 APPENDIX L City Hall and Tennis Court Site Parcel Information 321 CITY HALL 322 CITY HALL323 TENNIS COURT SITE 324 TENNIS COURTSITE325 APPENDIX M Preliminary Construction Concept Plans 326 CITY OF ROLLING HILLSSEWER STUDY FOR CONNECTION TO CITY HALLCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®3TITLE SHEET1CALIFORNIAFORCITY OF ROLLING HILLSPRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT PLANSSEWER STUDY FOR CONNECTIONTO CITY HALLROLLING HILLSLA COUNTYROLLING HILLS ESTATESTORRANCE327 ROLLING HILLS ROADCRENSHAW BOULEVARDCITY OF ROLLING HILLSSEWER STUDY FOR CONNECTION TO CITY HALLCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®3PLAN AND PROFILESTATION 1+00 TO STATION 6+952328 ROLLING HILLS ROADCNES ( 2 0 1 9) Di stri b uti o n Air b u s D S © 202 0 Mi cr o s oft C or p or ati o n © 2 0 2 0 Di git al Gl o b e © C N E S ( 2 0 2 0) Di stri b uti o n Air b u s D S PORTUGUESE BEND ROADPALOS VERDESDRIVE NORTHROLLING HILLS ROADCITY OF ROLLING HILLSSEWER STUDY FOR CONNECTION TO CITY HALLCITY OF ROLLING HILLSOFKnow what'sbelow.Callbefore you dig. ®3PLAN AND PROFILESTATION 37+27 TO STATION 50+813329 APPENDIX N 1st Submittal Comments from City of Rolling Hills And Responses 330 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS City of Rolling Hills- Sewer Service Feasibility Study-Phase II Date: December 19, 2019 Sewer Area Study Submitted to City: October 17, 2019 City Review by Alan Palermo: December 2, 2019 The City of Rolling Hills provided comments on the initial submittal of the Sewer Area Study on December 2, 2019. The comments were reviewed with the City by telephone on December 3, 2019. The following is a restatement of each City comment followed by Willdan’s response. Comment 1: Add Table of Contents, list all Appendices and include description of content. Response: A Table of Contents with the requested information has been added to the Sewer Area Study. Comment 2: Flow Coefficients, Page 7, Report states Peaking Factor of 2.5 was used (also referenced in Appendix H). The October 2018 Sewer Feasibility Study prepared by Willdan uses a peaking factor of 3.0. What changed? State source of peaking factor/revise Sewer Area Study to use the correct peaking factor. Response: The discussion on Page 7 of the Sewer Area Study addresses the peaking factor of 2.5. The value of 2.5 is from the table “Estimated Average Daily Sewage Flows for Various Occupancies” in Appendix H. The table is from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Beneath the upper table there is an asterisk with the note “Multiply the average daily flow by 2.5 to obtain the peak flow.”. Comment 3: Appendix B Map a. Scale on Map is not industry standard b. State Scale (1” = ….) c. Add d/D column for the sewer segments d. What are units used in Design Capacity column? e. What is the asterisk for (Design Capacity)? 331 Response: a. The scale has been set to 1” = 500’ on the full size exhibits. The scale on the 11” x 17” exhibits has been set to 1” = 1000’. b. A numeric scale has been added to each Exhibit per a. above c. A d/D column has been added to the table on each Exhibit. d. The units “cfs” have been added to the Design Capacity column on each Exhibit. e. The asterisk has been deleted from the Design Capacity column on each Exhibit. Comment 4: Appendix C a. Half the map is blank (only elevations for contour lines is shown) Response: a. The map has been reprinted correctly. Comment 5: Appendix F a. First map is backwards Response: a. The map has been reprinted correctly. Comment 6: Appendix H & I a. Identify Source of information/standards for tables in these appendices Response: a. Labels have been added to the information in Appendices H & I. Comment 7: Appendix J-1 and J-2 a. State units for Design Capacity column b. Add d/D column for the sewer segments c. What is the velocity in each sewer segment? Response: a. The units “cfs” have been added to the Design Capacity column b. A column “Cum. Calc’d flow depth / Diameter” has been added. The FlowMaster calculations to determine these values are contained in Appendices K-3 and K-4. c. A column “Cum. Calc’d Flow Vel. (fps)” has been added. The FlowMaster calculations to determine these values are contained in Appendices K-3 and K-4. 332 Comment 8: Appendix K-1 and K-2 a. If these calculations are supposed to represent Design Capacities (pipe half full for pipes less than 15-inches in diameter), why is the critical depth greater than 50%? Response: a. As discussed on the telephone, the critical depth shown in the FlowMaster calculations is the depth at which the Froude No. = 1. It has no bearing on the design of the system and is just part of the substantial output values provided by the program. Comment 9: Conclusion a. Is the recommended 10-inch pipeline a standard sewer pipeline size used by the City of Torrance? b. Has there been any discussion with the City of Torrance regarding this proposed improvement and if yes, is this acceptable to City of Torrance? Response: a. The Sewer Area Study has been submitted and reviewed by the City of Torrance. The City had a few comments but none relating to the 10” pipe size. b. As mentioned above, the City of Torrance has reviewed the Sewer Area Study. The City is requesting that the 3 most downstream segments of the sewer system be upsized to 10” pipes. The Sewer Area Study, calculations, and preliminary plans have been revised to address this comment. Comment 10: Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimate Response: As discussed on the telephone, a preliminary cost estimate will be provided once the Sewer Area Study and preliminary plans have been approved by all agencies. Respectfully submitted, Chris Stone WILLDAN ENGINEERING 333 APPENDIX O 1st Submittal Comments from City of Rolling Hills Estates And Responses 334 1 Chris Stone From:David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent:Monday, October 21, 2019 7:55 AM To:Chris Stone Subject:RE: Sewer As-builds Thanks Chris. All sounds doable. David From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 7:14 AM To: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds David, At this point the project is a feasibility study to obtain a Will Serve Letter from the San District and agreement/approval from the LACDPW, City of Rolling Hills Estates, and City of Torrance. Once all agencies agree that the project is feasible, then it can move into the final design phase. I do not have information on the construction schedule that the City of Rolling Hills is looking at. It may be that the sewer and repaving project could be coordinated. I will provide the City with your comment/concerns. Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering 702-289-4247 From: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:53 PM To: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Chris, My only concern is that we don’t want RH Rd. to look like a jigsaw puzzle. We will be repaving the road in the next several years so maybe the timing of all this can be coordinated with our re-pavement project… Thanks, David From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:47 PM 335 2 To: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds David, Yes, the new line is the red line on the exhibit. I am attaching the preliminary engineering plans, which will also be in the study. Note that the plans are only being developed to the preliminary stage at this point in time. Complete design plans are a future project. Any comments/conditions you provide will be documented and forwarded to the City of Rolling Hills in a Design Memorandum. Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering 702-289-4247 From: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 4:30 PM To: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Hi Chris, So they would be trenching in RH Rd.? The red line is the new line, right? Or off to the side of the street? If it’s in the street, we don’t want to see a patch running down RH Rd…… Please advise, David From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:40 PM To: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Cc: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com>; Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds David, The connection is in Rolling Hills Rd, just south of Lariat Lane. The sewer will extend south in Rolling Hills Rd to beyond Palos Verdes Drive North. For your reference, I am attaching the Sewer Area Study Exhibit which will be contained in the study. We will have a copy of the study delivered to you. Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering 702-289-4247 336 3 From: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:13 PM To: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Cc: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com>; Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Hi Chris, While we won’t be approving the connections unless they are actually in RHE, I would still like to see the study! Thanks, David From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 2:11 PM To: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Cc: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com>; Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Hello David, You responded to a few of my questions a couple of months ago regarding a project for the City of Rolling Hills to study the feasibility of connecting to the sewer in Rolling Hills Road. Willdan has prepared a sewer area study for the project and will be submitting it to LACDPW and the City of Torrance. As the sewer is maintained by LACDPW, do we need to submit the sewer area study to the City of Rolling Hills Estates for review? Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering 702-289-4247 From: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:57 AM To: Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Cc: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Hi Chris, The City of RHE has transferred most, if not all, of our sewer lines to the LACOPW / Sanitation Districts, who also maintain the lines. Please contact LACOPW for more info. Thanks, David David Wahba Director of Community Development & Public Works | City of Rolling Hills Estates | 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North | Rolling Hills Estates | CA | 90274 337 4 310.377.1577 ext. 103 | 310.377.4468 (FAX) | davidW@RollingHillsEstatesCa.gov | www.RollingHillsEstatesCa.gov #RHE From: Mike Goldsmith Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 6:39 AM To: David Wahba <davidw@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Subject: FW: Sewer As-builds David Could you respond to this . Mike Goldsmith Maintenance Supervisor PH..310-377-1577 X 137 Direct..310-378-4504 FAX..310-378-3988 mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 2:59 PM To: Mike Goldsmith Cc: Alexis Escobar Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Hello Mike, You provided assistance to us regarding sewer as-builts. We are working on a project for the City of Rolling Hills to study the feasibility of connecting to the sewer in Rolling Hills Road. We are in the early stages of the study. Ultimately we will need information regarding what fees, permits, easements, and agreements would be required for the construction of the improvements and conveyance of the wastewater. If you know this information, please send it. If you do not know, do you know who I should contact for this information? Attached is an exhibit showing the proposed sewer connection. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering 702-289-4247 338 5 From: Chris Stone Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:51 AM To: Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Cc: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Mike, Thank you for your effort on this request. Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering | Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted. 702-289-4247 702-280-2381 cell From: Mike Goldsmith <mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:34 AM To: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Cc: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com> Subject: RE: Sewer As-builds Good morning All My apologies for late response, I have searched and verified with our planning department , we do not have anything for sewer as builds in the location requested Mike Mike Goldsmith Maintenance Supervisor PH..310-377-1577 X 137 Direct..310-378-4504 FAX..310-378-3988 mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us From: Chris Stone [mailto:cstone@willdan.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:41 AM To: Mike Goldsmith Cc: Alexis Escobar Subject: RE: Sewer As-builts Hello Mike, I am working with Alexis on this project. He will be out of the office the rest of this week. Please include me on any emails that you send to him regarding as-built information. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. 339 6 Regards, Chris Stone Willdan Engineering | Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted. 702-289-4247 702-280-2381 cell From: Alexis Escobar <AEscobar@willdan.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 11:54 AM To: mikeg@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us Cc: Chris Stone <cstone@willdan.com> Subject: Sewer As-builts Hi Mike, Per our conversation, we are looking for as-builts for a sewer on Rolling Hills Rd. We have a maintenance map from LA County that shows which system we are looking for. Since this system is within Rolling Hills Estates, we hope to find as- builts in the City. The second attachment shows more detail on the requested lines. Our main priority for our study is the line highlighted in red. It will be useful to have information on the lines highlighted in yellow. You mentioned these might be in City Hall. Please advise if you require my assistance in searching for the as-builts. Thank you, Alexis Escobar Willdan Engineering | Comprehensive. Innovative. Trusted. 2401 East Katella Avenue, Suite 300, Anaheim, CA-92806-6073 W. 657.223.8534 aescobar@willdan.com 340 APPENDIX P 1st Submittal Comments from City of Torrance And Responses 341 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS City of Rolling Hills- Sewer Service Feasibility Study-Phase II Date: December 19, 2019 Sewer Area Study Submitted to City: October 17, 2019 City Review by Ted Symons: November 26, 2019 The City of Torrance provided comments on the initial submittal of the Sewer Area Study on November 26, 2019. The following is a restatement of each City comment followed by Willdan’s response. Comment 1: Submit $1994 sewer study review fee. Response: A check in the amount of $1994 is being transmitted to the City. Comment 2: (Regarding Introduction, paragraph 2) – Provide a map showing the path/route of the three alternatives. Response: Information regarding the route of the three alternatives is attached. The routes were described in the Proposal for the Phase I Study (see attached Exhibit A and its corresponding exhibit). The description of the evaluation of the alternatives was conta ined in the Phase I Study (also attached). The 3 routes evaluated all convey to the sewer within Rolling Hills Road. Comment 3: (Regarding RESULTS – Proposed Conditions) – Note, the City of Torrance Sewer Master Plan (1992) did not analyze this se gment of sewer on Rolling Hills Rd. so no comparison can be made to this study. Response: Noted. No comparison is made to the City of Torrance Sewer Master Plan. The information contained in this Sewer Area Study analyzes all parcels conveying to the sewer in Rolling Hills Road in the existing and proposed conditions. 342 Comment 4: (Regarding Conclusions) – Need to upsize the portion of sewer between MH#8 and the LACSD trunk line because the portion between MH ’s #8 & 9 is to be upsized and a restriction may cause plugs. Response: Concur. The Study, analysis and plans have been revised to upsize this segment to 10” pipe. Comment 5: (Regarding Conclusions) – It’s advisable to also upsize the portion of sewer between MH’s #1 and 9 because it will be flowing @ approx. ½ at peak after new flows are added. Response: Concur. The Study, analysis and plans have been revised to upsize this segment to 10” pipe. Comment 6: (Regarding Will Serve Letter) – Missing will serve letter. Response: The Will Serve Letter’s issued by the San. District have been incorporated into Appendix A. Respectfully submitted, Chris Stone WILLDAN ENGINEERING 343 344 Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 345 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SEWER FEASABILITY STUDY INCLUDING CITY HALL AND TENNIS COURT SITE Prepared Under the Supervision of Ray Wellington, P.E. R.C.E. No. 25131 Willdan Engineering 2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 300 Anaheim, California 92806 (714) 978-8200 OCTOBER 2018 346 1 INTRODUCTION The City retained Willdan Engineering to conduct research and prepare an engineering feasibility evaluation for sanitary sewer pipeline service to the city hall and adjacent tennis court site. The existing and proposed facilities to be discharging to the new sewer pipeline include: 8-sinks, 8- toilets (existing) plus 2-sinks, 1 toilet, and 1-drinking fountain (proposed). The study evaluation scope of work included: review of three alternative pipeline routes with related costs and their respective pros and cons for each. In addition to serving the above described sewering facilities, the study is to address the possibility of serving an additional 200+/- residential units of future connection development within the City. Currently the waste discharge flows from both city hall and tennis court facilities are received into an existing septic tank located on the city hall site. This type of ‘onsite waste treatment system’ (OWTS) is prevalent throughout the city and the Palos Verdes peninsula area. During the past 75+ years, Los Angeles County and the State of California have developed and imposed more rigorous installation standards, technical requirements and sophisticated equipment for septic systems. The regulations are updated frequently and each time, they are more restrictive. Their purpose, in part, is to preclude the contamination of water (ground water, surface water, streams, rivers and the oceans) from the release of harmful elements into the environment. Those standards further address the saturation of soil that could contribute to a failure in stability of slopes. The increase in governmental regulation of OWTS may sometime in the future, preclude their installation and use. To date, changes in the regulations have resulted in higher installation and maintenance costs and recently have added monitoring/reporting costs for OWTS users. Such costs will undoubtedly continue to rise as additional controls are implemented. Local septic systems have been in place since the start of development of the private community in the mid-1930s and over time, tanks, seepage pits and leach field facilities have aged, and some have been replaced. For the 684 homes in the City of Rolling Hills, 671 (98%) utilize septic systems for containing and processing household wastewater and sewage. As housing stock continues to age, property owners should anticipate updating or replacing septic systems as homes remodel or septic systems fail. Both the continuing increases in regulatory mandates and future costs for septic system improvements are important consideration points. Waste discharges to a sanitary sewer pipeline also have associated capital, maintenance, and treatment costs. These costs are usually shared costs with all the other users of those waste system facilities. Such facilities typically have a longer service life than OWTS facilities that are typically located on the local user’s parcel. OBJECTIVE The objective of this evaluation is to determine the viability and associated costs of connecting a new sewer pipeline from the City of Rolling Hills to an existing sewer pipeline within Rolling Hills Estates, then through a pipe in the City of Torrance sewer system to reach a regional trunk sewer within Crenshaw Blvd. The trunk sewer pipeline is owned and operated by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. There were three preliminary alternative pipeline routes, as described in the proposal by Willdan, but initial evaluation ruled out the alternatives that were costlier due to needed upgrade of an existing lift(pump) station, and the other due to accessibility for maintenance and impacts to traffic flow during construction and the annual maintenance of Discussion regarding alternatives. 347 2 the pipe in that alignment. The remaining alternative involves utilizing the existing gravity flow sewer located in Rolling Hills Road that is approximately 1,500 feet north east of the city hall site. While the connection is for the City Hall and adjacent tennis courts, the city also foresees utilizing this connection for future connection developments. Southwest of the city hall, there are 235 residences currently on septic that may potentially connect to the sanitary sewer system that is the focus of the evaluation. The feasibility of connecting those additional residences is included as part of this study. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS To accomplish a thorough evaluation this analysis includes waste flow generation, evaluation of existing pipe capacity downstream, and the downstream agency acceptance and criteria, identifies stakeholders and permitting requirements, and provides an estimated cost associated with permitting and construction of any proposed pipe facilities. Sewer Connection Analysis The City is anticipating a conventional gravity sewer connection to the existing downstream pipelines. For the purposes of this study, the conceptual design presented is in accordance with LACDPW Sewer Maintenance Division Standards; an important note presuming the City will contract with the LACDPW for maintenance of the sewer system and dedicate the appropriate easements for construction and maintenance. The proposed sewer line is an 8” pipe that will be constructed within the City of Rolling Hills Estates in the existing Rolling Hills Road public street easement. Ideally, the proposed sewer line will have a depth of 7.5 to 10 feet to minimize capital cost due to excavation and to comply with common practice. Design Requirements The following are the typical LACDPW Maintenance Division design parameters for gravity sewers: Minimum pipe diameter 8-inch Minimum Depth Approximately 7.5 -8 feet, provide 6 feet of cover at Property line Maximum Depth less than 20’ 20’-25 or more required concrete cradle Greater than 25’ jacked in steel casing Minimum Slope 0.0040 – for 8” pipe Subminimum Slope 0.0024 – for 8” pipe Depth of flow ratio 0.50 depth of flow divided by the diameter of the pipe (d/D) Minimum Velocity 2-3 feet per sec, to maintain self-cleaning scour velocities Manhole Spacing 300 feet Waste Water Flow Calculations The existing sewer system pipelines down-stream of the potential connection point were evaluated for capacity to determine if existing pipes have the capacity to convey potential future flows. These flows are for City Hall in addition to the 235 residences currently on septic. Discussion regarding alternatives. 348 APPENDIX Q 1st Submittal Comments from LACDPW 349 P:\ldpub\SUBPCHECK\Sewer\Forms\Area Study Forms\Sewer Area Study Correction List.doc (Rev 5/12/14) Page 1 of 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SEWER AREA STUDY CORRECTIONS LIST REJECT DESIGN CHECK INCOMPLETE REPORT ADDRESS or TR/PM/CUP NO. DETAIL CHECK MISSING ITEMS PRIVATE CONTRACT (PC) NO. DIRECT CHECK ENGINEERING FIRM CHECKED BY TEL. No. PROJECT ENGINEER DATE TELEPHONE No. REVIEW NO. CSMD INDEX THOMAS GUIDE Your plans have been checked and the necess ary corrections, additions, and instructions are checked below. The plans will not be rechecked until the correction list is returned showing either your check mark indicating the correction has been made or a b rief explanation for each item that does not have your check mark. Make all corrections checked below. Also, make corrections or additions indicated in red on the attached check print(s). A. Provide the following checked items: Initial deposit of $ 2,000.00 plan check fee for the initial review. Please be advised that there may be additional fees based on the cumulative time spent on this project. Copy of Sewer Maintenance Division (CSMD) index maps that cover the tributary area ending at entrance to the trunk sewer. Please leave the sewer manhole numbers intact on the index maps for areas that are within the boundaries of Unincorporated Los Angeles County. An area map (the CSMD index maps may be used for this purpose) showing the following i nformation: boundary of the tributary area; location of project (highlighted); topographic details including contour data; existing sewer lines with diam eter and direction of flow indicated. You may superimpose zoning/land use and acreage information on the area map by color coding. Copy of the LA County zoning map or City zoning map covering the entire tributary area in order to support zone -dependent calculations for maximum allotment of discharge per s ubarea. If copies of the zoning maps are not available, replicate the zoning information on the area map and provide the following certification on the map: "A thorough investigation of availabl e zoning records from the County Department of Regional Planning/ City of has been conducted by the undersigned and is factually presented herewith as part of the sewer area study for TR/PM/CUP . The sewer area study shall be invalidated should the total number of dwelling units increase, the density increases, or dwelling units occur on previously identified building restricted lots." The engineer's signature and wet stamp shall accompany this certification. This will not replace the required signature and wet stamp at the title page of the report. Include a table, similar in format to the attached sample table. Please use original manhole numbers as stated on the CSMD index maps. Please use Kutter’s Formula with n=0.013 (Graph S-C4 in PC Manual) to find the design capacity for each sewer segment. Peak exit Q from the City of per a separate approved sewer area study. This corresponds to manhole number on CSMD index map number on N/S/W/E of . Calculations supporting all entries in the table. Obtain outlet approval from the City of . When outlet approvals are required, the applicant shall obtain the city’s stamp and signature on the area study with the notation “For Outlet Approval Only.” Obtain a “will serve letter” from the trunk agency indicating the availability of capacity to serve the project and if necess ary its annexation into their jurisdiction. Prior to area study approval, obtain tentative/exhibit map comments from Sewer Maintenance Division for non -gravity sewer facilities (such as pump stations, treatment plants, siphons, etc.). Backups for calculating acreages for each subarea. Copy of tentative map and condition of approvals. Copy of As-built plans from project site to trunk connection. Copy of As-built plans for downstream analysis. Willdan: deposit has been paid. Willdan: Table revised per sample. Note client requested keeping the existing analysis. Willdan: Noted. See exhibits in Appendix F.4 4 4 1 02/11/2020 (626)458-4957Pedro Romero Alexis Escobar Willdan PC 12523AS 350 P:\ldpub\SUBPCHECK\Sewer\Forms\Area Study Forms\Sewer Area Study Correction List.doc (Rev 5/12/14) Page 2 of 2 SEWER AREA STUDY CORRECTIONS LIST (CONT.) B. Corrections/Comments: On all submitted maps, clearly delineate and highlight the boundary of the proposed development/project site. Highlight existing mainline sewer from project site to trunk line. Outline the sewer segments that are overloaded and hence need to be upgraded. Indicate PC/CI plan number, pipe size, and slope along sewer mainline from project site to trunk line. Delineate tributary area on maps. Extend area study to topographic ridge line. Color code subareas and land use zones. Provide sewer flow rates and capacity checks between all MHS, at sewer confluences, subdivision and political boundaries, and at critical sewer pipe size/slope locations. Provide data in tabular format. Wet stamp and sign the report. C. Include the following narrative items: Introduction Site Description Project Description (e.g., number of lots, parks, schools, open space, etc.). Description of proposed sewer system (e.g., gravity, force main, range of sizes, slopes, etc.). Description of existing sewer system Methodology used and list of references Sewer capacity analysis (Identification of impacts and potential overloads) Proposed mitigation if necessary Conclusion D. Report will not be accepted for checking without the following: $ balance of checking fee (refer to fee schedule as posted on LDD website) Checkprint and comments. Outlet approval from City of . Additional Corrections ADDRESS OR TR/PM/CUP NO. PROJECT NO. Willdan: Noted. Maps revised accordingly. Willdan: Noted and addressed. Willdan: Noted. Maps revised accordingly. Willdan: Noted and addressed. Willdan: Report revised accordingly. Please see the corrections shown in the report. PC 12523AS 4 4 4 4 351 Agenda Item No.: 8.A Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ALAN PALERMO, PROJECT MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:ACCEPT THE FY 2019-2020 TRAFFIC SIGNING, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKING PROJECT AS COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION TO BE FILED WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: The Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Signing and Striping Project includes the proposed signing and striping of horse crossings, the signing and striping of the four streets (Middleridge Lane North, Middleridge Lane South, Williamsburg Lane and Lower Blackwater Canyon Road), the signing and striping of Crest Road East, and the signage and striping of the proposed all-way stop control at Williamsburg Lane and Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. The project was reviewed by the Traffic Commission on October 3, 2019 and was recommended for approval and advertisement for construction bid. On January 13, 2020, City Council awarded a construction contract to the PCI as the lowest responsible bidder for work included in Schedule A of the Request for Bid for the FY 2019-2020 traffic signing, striping, and pavement marking project for an amount of $40,479.50 and allocate an additional $4,048 for 10% contingency for a total of $44,527.50. On January 27, 2020, City Council considered and approved a contract change order to the construction contract with PCI to add work identified in Schedule B of the Request for Bid for an amount of $33,205.00 and allocate an additional $3,320.50 for 10% contingency for a total of $36,525.50. DISCUSSION: On February 19, 2020 a kick-off meeting was held with PCI and layout work was scheduled to commence the week of February 24, 2020. Upon completion, review, and acceptance of the layout work, installation of signs, striping and markings proceeded in March 2020. Due to the unusually high number of rain events in March work continued throughout the month. Upon completion of the work,352 the City’s contract Traffic Engineer Charles Abbot & Associates inspected the work and prepared an inspection report/punch-list of corrections on March 30, 2020. Inspection report/punch-list was presented to PCI and PCI agreed to correct all items in the report. All work including additional work requested by the City was completed by April 29, 2020. Two changes orders in the amount of $500 (new roadway sign approved by the Traffic and Safety Commission) and $1,200 (unaccounted for pavement markers) were approved by staff. Both change orders represented new work requested by the City as additions to the scope of work covered in Schedule A. The total dollar amount of the change orders is within the contingency amounts approved by the City Council. PCI submitted final invoices for Schedule A and Schedule B work April 30, 2020. The table below summarizes the bid amount, contract amount, change orders, and final project construction cost. Bid Contingency Contract Amount Change Orders Total of Work Performed Schedule A $ 40,479.50 $ 4,047.95 $ 44,527.45 $ 1,700.00 $ 42,179.50 Schedule B $ 33,205.00 $ 3,320.50 $ 36,525.50 $ - $ 33,205.00 Subtotal $ 73,684.50 $ 7,368.45 $ 81,052.95 $ 1,700.00 Final Project Construction Cost $ 75,384.50 The final project construction cost is $75,384.50 FISCAL IMPACT: In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, $40,000 was budgeted in the Traffic Safety Fund for road striping and signage. At the time of contract award, the City Council re-allocated an additional $41,052.95 from the Tennis Court Improvement Project to the FY 2019-2020 Traffic Signing, Striping, Pavement Marking Project. The final project construction cost of $75,384.50 is less than the $81,052.95 allocated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. Accept the FY 2019-2020 Traffic Signing, Striping, Pavement Marking Project as complete and in accordance with the contract plans and specifications; 2. File Notice of Completion with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office; and 3. Release retention as final payment to PCI after the expiration of the lien period. ATTACHMENTS:353 354 Agenda Item No.: 8.B Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:TERRY SHEA, FINANCE DIRECTOR THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDER AND APPROVE FINANCE/BUDGET/AUDIT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO INVESTMENT, FINANCIAL, BUDGET, DEBT AND ASSET CAPITALIZATION POLICIES, AND SCHEDULE OF FEE AND CHARGES. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: On April 27, 2020, the City Council Finance/Budget/Audit Committee reviewed the Investment Policy, the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies, Resolution 953 - Asset Capitalization Policy and the Schedule of Fees and Charges. Staff recommended the following to the Committee: Change the Cash Reserve of the Refuse Fund to be the amount of service fee subsidy. The subsidy for FY 2020-2021 is estimated to be $132,000. Deposit additional funds into the PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Program Section 115 Trust. Deposits of $185,000 were made in FY 2017-2018 and FY 2018-2019. Current Section 115 Trust fund balance per audit as of June 30, 2019 is $382,972. The City's Net Pension Liability was $369,954 as of June 30, 2016. The City's Net Pension Liability was $622,418 as of June 30, 2019. The shortfall to fund the pension liability as of June 30, 2019 is $239,446 ($622,418 - $382,972). Staff recommended to mimic the actions of previous years and make two deposits of $119,723 to make up the shortfall of $239,446. To track the Safe Clean Water Measure W funds, staff recommended to create Fund 15, increase the total number of Funds from 14 to 15. Staff recommended to carry over funds set aside for capital improvement projects as most capital improvement projects span across fiscal years. With the revenues from the building permits and related fees down from last fiscal year, staff recommended to increase the multiplier from 2.25% to the multiplier in Fiscal Year 2017-2018, 2.5%. 355 DISCUSSION: 1. The Committee did not recommend any changes to the Investment Policy or the Asset Capitalization Policy. 2. The Committee recommended the following changes to the Financial, Budget and Debt Policy. The Committee recommended to change the Cash Reserve amount for the Refuse Fund to the amount of the service fee subsidy absorbed by the General Fund. This amount would fluctuate depending on the approved subsidy amount and would be budgeted annually as a transfer to the Refuse Fund. The Committee also recommended to deposit $50,000 in the PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Program Section 115 Trust for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. The Committee also recommended to revise the reserve section of the Policy to continuously deposit monies in the Section 115 trust over time as funds are available in order to maintain adequate reserves. The Committee recommended adding Fund 15 to separately track the LA County Measure W Fund. This would change the total number of Funds from 14 to 15 necessitating a revision to the Categories of Funds section of the Budget Policies. The Committee recommended adding a section to the Budget Policies for the carryover of unexpended budget appropriations for approved capital projects and each project would be reviewed annually by the Finance/Budget/Committee for recommendation for carryover. 3. The Committee did not recommend any changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges. FISCAL IMPACT: If supported by the City Council, the Committee's recommendations will be implemented in the budget planning for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. The impacts of the recommendations will be evaluated at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the Finance/Budget/Audit Committee’s recommended changes and direct to implement the changes. ATTACHMENTS: 2019-2020 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule.pdf AssetCapitalization_Policy_Resolution No. 953.pdf Financial_Policies.pdf Investment_Policy.pdf Finance Budget Audit Comittee Notes 04-27-20.docx 356 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX, FEE AND FINE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED TAXES Real Property Transfer Tax Property value exceeds $100,000 - Ordinance No. 72 December 11, 1967 a tax at the rate of 27.5 cents for each five hundred dollars or fractional part thereof. Cable Television Franchise 2.50% of gross annual receipts Resolution No. 823 July 28, 1997 BUILDING AND SAFETY PERMITS BUILDING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL PERMITS (LA COUNTY) Resolution No. 496 August 23, 1982 Building Permit Two and one quarter the amount set forth in Resolution No. 1226 July 9, 2018 the LA County Building Code for each fee. Plumbing Permit Two and one quarter times the amount set forth in the LA County Plumbing Code for each fee. Mechanical Permit Two and one quarter times the amount set forth in the LA County Mechanical Code for each fee. Electrical Permit Two and one quarter times the amount set forth in the LA County Electrical Code for each fee. Park & Recreation Fund Fee New residential dwelling - Resolution No. 1206 May 22, 2017 2% of the first $100,00 of construction valuation, plus 0.25% of such valuation over $100,000 Solar and Photovoltaic Systems and The amount set forth in the Los Angeles CounResolution No. 1064 July 13, 2009 Appurtenant Equipment Bulding and Electrical Codes for each fee, table and schedule therein, plus $60.11 City administrative fee. GEOTECHNICAL FEES 0.42% of the valuation of the proposed structuResolution No. 931 April 14, 2003 Minimum charge - $535 Maximum charge - $3,588 PERMITTING PROCESS THROUGH A CITY APPROVED CONSULTANT Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Resolution No. 1034 February 11, 2008 Department of Building and Safety fees Solar and Photovoltaic Systems and 25% surcharge on Los Angeles County Resolution No. 1064 July 13, 2009 Appurtenant Equipment Department of Building and Safety fees, plus $60.11 City administrative fee PLANNING, ZONING AND SUBDIVISIONS Resolution No. 691 September 28, 1992 Conditional Use Permits $1,500 Site Plan Review $1,500 Variance $1,250 Variance, Minor $750 Discretionary Approval Modification 2/3 of original application fee Zone Change $2,000 Zoning Amendment $2,000 General Plan Amendment $2,000 Lot Line Adjustment $1,500, plus county fee Tentative Parcel Map $1,500 and county fees plus 20% Tentative Tract Map $1,500 and county fees plus 20% Revised 06/24/19 Page 1 Copy of 2019-2020 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule.xlsx 357 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX, FEE AND FINE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED Appeal Fee 2/3 of original application fee Appeal of Zone Clerance $375 Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Environmental Impact Report City consultant fee plus 10% Resolution No. 1206 May 22,2017 Extension of Time $200 Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Final Parcel or Tract Map County fees Resolution No. 1206 May 22, 2017 County Clerk Processing Fee County fee Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Multiple Discretionary Reviews Most expensive fee for the first review and Resolution No. 1060 May 11, 2009 1/2 of the fee for the second review. No fee for third or more reviews Accessory Dwelling Unit Appl. Processing Fee $375 Resolution No. 2120 February 12, 2018 Stable Use Permit $375 Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Major Remodel Review $375 Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Lighting Ordinance Modification $375 Resolution No. 1206 May 22, 2017 Outdoor Lighting Audit $150 Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 City Council and Planning Commission $375 - fee to be credited if results in filing of Resolution No. 1149 July 22, 2013 Intrepretation and Misc. Reviews forml application to the Citry Council or Planning Commission Environmental Review fees for Discretionary Permits Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $200 Resolution No. 1119 April 23, 2012 Preparation of Negative Declaration or $50 plus fee charged by the CA Dept. of Fish Resolution No. 1206 May 22, 2017 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Game, if applicable, as adjusted annually Service Request County fees plus 20% Resolution No. 1119 April 23, 2012 Construction and Demolition Waste Permit $100 single project permit/ $750 deposit, refundable upon submittal of Certificate of Compliance Resolution No. 1060 June 24, 2019 ADDITIONAL PROCESSING FEE Resolution No. 854 January 25, 1999 Planning & Zoning Applications involving illegalAdministrative Fee $1,500 Resolution No. 1206 May 22, 2017 or "as built" structures or grading that require Stop Work Order $200 Resolution No. 1060 May 11, 2009 Planning Commission review. TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW Resolution No. 691 September 28, 1992 New driveways or other traffic related items $300 VIEW IMPAIRMENT Resolution No. 1119 April 23, 2012 Review by Committee on Trees and Views $2,000 Processing fee Environmental Review Fees Preparation and Staff Review of Initial Study $200 Preparation of Negative Declaration or $50 plus fee charged by the CA Dept. of Fish Mitigated Negative Declaration and Game, if applicable, as adjusted annually GENERAL ADMINISTRATION - PROCESSING FEES Resolution No. 691 September 28, 1992 General Plan $30 Zoning Code $25 Budget $30 Zoning Map $3 Xeroxed Copies, each page $0.25 Revised 06/24/19 Page 2 Copy of 2019-2020 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule.xlsx 358 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSOLIDATED TAX, FEE AND FINE SCHEDULE for FISCAL YEAR 2019/20 ITEM FEES CODE/RESO NO. DATE ADOPTED Subdivision Code $25 FALSE ALARM Resolution No. 1119 April 23, 2012 Fee for 1st incident involving a false alarm is waived 2nd $50 3rd $100 4th $150 5th $200 6th $250 BAIL/FINE SCHEDULE FOR VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS Resolution No. 791 August 12, 1996 As set forth in Bail/Fine Schedule for Resolution No. 799 October 28, 1996 Title 10 Violations,. Resolution No. 824 July 28, 1997 Resolution No. 1072 September 14, 2009 Resolution No. 1101 January 10, 2011 PARKING VIOLATION/CITATION PENALTY SCHEDULE Resolution No. 717 November 22, 1993 Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section Resolution No. 740 May 9, 1994 40203.5 and 40225 Resolution No. 824 July 28, 1997 FINE SCHEDLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS Social Host Liability (RHMC Chapter 9.58)Resolution No. 1206 May 22,2017 1st Volation $2,500 2nd Violation within one year of first $5,000 Each add'l violation within one year of first $7,500 DOG/CAT LICENSE FEES Resolution No. 527 April 23, 1984 Dog, unaltered $18 Dog, spayed/neutered $9 with Certificate of Sterility Metallic dog tag $5 Penalty for not renewing license $25 Duplicate dog tag $5 Transfer fee $3 Appeal fee $40 Cat, unaltered, lifetime (optional) $10 Cat, spayed/neutered, lifetime (optional) $5 with Certificate of Sterility QUIMBY ACT FEES FOR SUBDIVISIONS Park in-lieu fees and/or dedication Municipal Code March 2005 of land when subdividing property. Section 16.28.150 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES FY 2017/18 Annual Fee - $1,100 * Resolution No. 1051 January 12, 2009 PERMITS RELATIVE TO EXTRA LARGE VEHICLES ACCESSING THE CITY Resolution No. 637 March 25, 1991 $75 per vehicle (The City does not collect this fee.) * Solid Waste Collection Fee last updated 7/1/14 for FY 14/15 (City absorbed CPI increase for FY15/16, FY16/17, FY17/18, FY 18/19 and FY 19/20) Revised 06/24/19 Page 3 Copy of 2019-2020 Consolidated Tax and Fee Schedule.xlsx 359 360 361 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 1 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES FINANCIAL, BUDGET AND DEBT POLICIES Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007 See end of document for complete policy history. Current Version Effective: 05/27/2019 Policy Framework: The purpose of the Financial, Budget and Debt Policies is to guide the City Council and other City officials in developing sustainable, balanced budgets and managing the City’s finances in a prudent manner consistent with best practices. The City’s commitment to adopting and operating within a balanced budget is a core financial value and policy of the City. The City of Rolling Hills Financial Policies represents the City’s framework for planning and management of the City’s fiscal resources. Adherence to the Financial Policies promote sound financial management which can lead to unqualified annual audits, provide assurance to the taxpayers that tax dollars are being collected and spent per City Council direction and provide a minimum of unexpected impacts upon taxpayers and users of public services. The City Council Finance / Budget Committee shall serve as the City’s audit committee for the purpose of recommending the selection of an auditor to the City Council, meeting with the City Auditor, reviewing the annual audit and necessary financial statements, responding to conflicts between management and the auditor and responding to fraudulent activities. The City Council will conduct a competitive process for the selection of the independent external auditor every 6 years to be in conformance with California Government Code Section 12410.6. (b). commencing for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Any non- audit work performed by the independent external auditor, if allowed, will be done under a separate contract approved by the City Council. The City Manager shall be responsible for developing and, as appropriate, implementing and managing these policies as well as subsidiary policies that execute the City’s Financial Policies. The City’s Financial Policies shall be in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). 1. Financial Reporting Entity: The City of Rolling Hills was incorporated in 1957 under the general laws of the State of California. The City operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council consists of five members elected at large for overlapping four-year terms. The Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem are selected from the City Council members and serve a one-year term. The City Council appoints a City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer. In addition, the City Council appoints the members of advisory Commissions and Committees. The City, directly or by contract, provides municipal services as authorized by statute. Services provided include:  Public safety through the Los Angeles County Sheriff and Fire Department  Refuse collection by contract with a private hauler  Water through California Water Service Company 362 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 2  Sewer through Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts  Recreation  Public improvements  Planning and zoning  General administrative and support services 2. Financial Reporting Policies: The City’s accounting and financial reporting systems will be maintained in conformance with all state and federal laws, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and standards of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Further, the City will make every attempt to implement all changes to governmental accounting practices at the earliest practical time.  The financial report should be in conformity with GAAP, demonstrate compliance with finance related legal and contractual provisions, disclose thoroughly with detail sufficient to minimize ambiguity and potential for misleading interferences.  An annual audit will be performed by an independent public accounting firm with an audit opinion to be included with the City’s published Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.  The City’s budget should satisfy criteria as a financial and programmatic policy document, as a comprehensive financial plan, as an operations guide for all organizational units and as a communications device for all significant budgetary issues, trends, and resource choices.  The City shall evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed changes in employee benefits to be provided. Prior to assuming liability for expanded benefits, a viable funding plan with estimates of long term impacts shall be incorporated into the analysis.  The City shall endeavor to avoid committing to new spending for operating or capital improvement purposes until an analysis of all current and future cost implications is completed.  The City shall endeavor to maintain cash reserves sufficient to fully fund the next present value of accruing liabilities, obligations to employees for vested payroll and benefits and similar obligations as they are incurred.  The City shall prepare and present to the City Council monthly interim revenue and expenditure reports and a Mid-Year Review to allow evaluation of potential discrepancies from budget assumptions. 3. Internal Control Accounting Policies: To provide a reasonable basis for making management’s required representations concerning the finances of the City.  Accounting Records – Maintain accounting records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  Monthly Posting – Post a monthly record, which maintains each month’s activities separate and distinct from another month’s work. This provides visibility in locating errors and fixing corrections. Accounting ledgers will be reviewed and reconciled on a monthly 363 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 3 basis to supporting documentation – Cash Receipts, Accounts Payable, Payroll and Monthly Journal Entries.  Sequential Number – Sequentially numbered instruments will be used for checks and cash receipts. Pre-numbered receipts are controlled and accounted for by an individual with no accounting handling responsibilities. The City’s pre-numbered checks and pre-numbered cash receipts should be safeguarded in the Vault. All copies of voided receipt forms are retained, accounted for, and documented.  Audit Trail – The City’s accounting records and systems shall provide an audit trail (e.g. paper document) that allows for the tracing of each transaction from its original document to completion. 4. Operating Management Policies: The budget process is intended to weigh all competing requests for City resources within expected fiscal constraints. Requests for new, on-going programs made outside the budget process will be discouraged.  Budget development will consider multi-year implications of current decisions and allocations and use conservative revenue forecasts.  Revenues will not be dedicated for specific purposes, unless required by law or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). All non-restricted revenues will be deposited in the General Fund (or other designated fund as approved by the City Manager) and appropriated by the City Council.  Current revenues will fund current expenditures. City revenues will be managed to protect programs from short-term fluctuations that impact expenditures.  The City will endeavor to identify entrepreneurial solutions to cover or recover costs of operating program.  The City shall strive to avoid returning to the City Council for new or expanded appropriations during the fiscal year. Exceptions may include emergencies, unforeseen impacts, mid-year adjustments or new opportunities.  Additional personnel will be requested after service needs have been thoroughly examined and is substantiated for new program initiatives or policy directives.  All non-Enterprise user fees and charges will be evaluated at least every three years to determine the direct and indirect cost recovery rate. The analysis will be presented to the City Council.  The City shall endeavor to maintain adequate cash reserves to fund 100% replacement of capital equipment. Replacement costs will be based upon equipment lifecycle financial analysis developed by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager.  Balanced revenue and expenditure forecasts will be prepared to examine the City’s ability to absorb operating costs due to changes in the economy, service demands, and capital improvements. The forecast will be updated annually and include a four-year outlook. 364 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 4  Cash and investment programs will be maintained in accordance with the Government Code and the adopted investment policy will ensure that proper controls and safeguards are maintained. City funds will be managed in a prudent and diligent manner with an emphasis on safety of principal, liquidity, and financial return on principal, in that order. Pursuant to State law, the City, at least annually, revises and the City Council affirms a detailed investment policy. 5. Capital Management Policies:  Capital improvement projects are defined as infrastructure or equipment purchases or construction which results in a capitalized asset and having a useful (depreciable) life of at least one year with a cost of $5,000 or more per the City’s resolution Number 953.  The Finance Department shall utilize the straight-line method of calculating depreciation over the estimated useful life for all classes of assets.  The capital improvement plan will attempt to include, in addition to current operating maintenance expenditures, adequate funding to support, repair and replace deteriorating infrastructure and avoid a significant unfunded liability.  Capital improvement lifecycle costs will be coordinated with the development of the City’s operating budget. Future operating, maintenance, and replacement costs associated with new capital improvements will be forecast, matched to available revenue sources and be included in the operating budget. Capital project contract awards or purchases will include a fiscal impact statement disclosing the expected operating impact of the project or acquisition and when such cost is expected to occur. 6. Reserve Policies: It is the goal of the City to obtain and maintain a General Fund operating reserve (Rainy day fund) in the form of cash, of at least 40% of prior year audited annual General Fund revenues to cover normal seasonal cash flow variations, as well as unforeseen emergency or catastrophic impacts upon the City.  One-time revenue windfalls should be designated as a reserve or used for one-time expenditures. The funds should not be used for on-going operations. For purposes of this policy, one-time revenue windfalls shall include: CalPERS rebates Tax revenue growth in excess of 10% in a single year Unexpected revenues (e.g., litigation settlement) Any other revenues the City Council may elect to designate as extraordinary  All unexpended General Funds from the prior fiscal year will be deposited in the General Fund Reserve Fund (Rainy Day Fund.)  The City will strive to maintain the Municipal Self-Insurance Fund with a July 1 balance of $500,000.  The City will strive to transfer $250,000 annually into the Utilities Fund for the purpose of building up the necessary balance for underground projects. 365 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 5  Enterprise Fund (e.g., for refuse collection) user fees and charges will be examined annually to ensure that they recover all direct and indirect costs of the service, provide for capital improvements and maintenance and maintain adequate reserves. Moreover, maintenance of cash reserves will provide a de facto rate stabilization plan. Rate increases shall be approved by the City Council following formal noticing and public hearing. Rate adjustments for enterprise operations will be based on five-year financial plans unless a conscious decision is made to the contrary. The current cash reserves shall be $66,200. 7. Budget Policies: The function of the City of Rolling Hills is primarily administrative. A. Categories of Funds  The City’s annual budget contains fourteen different funds managed in conformance with the City’s Fund Balance Policy: General Fund Community Facility Fund Self-Insurance Fund Refuse Fund Traffic Fund Transit Fund - Proposition A Transit Fund - Proposition C Transit Fund – Measure R Transit Fund – Measure M Capital Projects Fund Citizens Options for Public Safety Fund (COPS) Fund California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) Fund. Utility Fund OPEB (Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions) Fund  Each fund is considered to be a separate accounting entity for budgeting and financial reporting purposes.  The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self- balancing accounts which are comprised of each fund’s assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenditures, as appropriate.  The City resources are allocated to and for individual funds based upon the purpose of the spending activities.  All funds and reserves will be evaluated annually for long-term adequacy and use requirements in conjunction with development of the City’s long-term budget assumptions. B. Operating Budget Guidelines  The Budget is detailed - Expenditures are authorized line by line, item by item. Line items are used to limit precisely the amount and narrowly define what can be spent.  The Budget is annual - The annual budget period is from July 1 to June 30. The time 366 FINANCIAL POLICIES 05/27/2019 6 span of the authority to spend is restricted to one year. Each year the regular cycle of budgeting is repeated.  The budget is comprehensive – The budget is prepared for all funds expended by the City.  The City adopts a budget by June 30 of each year.  Comparative Data - Comparative data from the prior year is presented in the annual budget in order to provide an understanding of changes in the City’s financial position and operation.  Public Hearing - The City Council reviews a tentative budget and adopts the final budget. A public hearing is conducted to receive comments prior to adoption. C. Financial Review Throughout the fiscal year, monthly financial reports comparing actual amounts with budgeted amounts are prepared by the Finance Director and submitted to the City Manager and members of the City Council. As these reports are reviewed, attention is drawn to variances between budgeted amounts and actual amounts. D. Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures The City reviews fees and charges to keep pace with the cost of providing the service. 8. Debt Management Policies: The City will seek to avoid incurring debt. While the City is disposed to funding capital improvements and expenditures on a cash basis, the City will consider, and when necessary, enter into debt financing for citywide public improvement projects such as sewers and utility undergrounding.  Lease Equipment - Office Equipment has been leased on a monthly basis with the expense incurred at the time of payment. Policy Administrative History: Adopted September 24, 2007 Revised and Adopted March 24, 2008 Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009 Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010 Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011 Revised and Adopted May 23, 2011 Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012 Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013 Revised and Adopted September 9, 2013 Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014 Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015 Reviewed and Revised April 25, 2016 Reviewed and Adopted April 24, 2017 Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2019 367 INVESTMENT POLICY 4/24/2017 1 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/PROCEDURES INVESTMENT POLICY Original Version Effective: 09/24/2007 See end of document for complete policy history. Current Version Effective: 04/24/2017 1.0 Policy It is the policy of the City of Rolling Hills to protect, preserve and maintain the assets of the City. It shall invest public funds in a manner that will provide the highest investment return commensurate with maximum security while meeting the cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all State and Local statutes governing the investment of public funds. 2.0 Scope The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds, except for funds in the City’s employee deferred compensation plan. Funds contained in the City’s pool are designated the “General Portfolio.” These funds are accounted for in the Financial Statements of the City and include: The General Fund All Special Revenue Funds All Capital Projects Funds All Enterprise Funds All Internal Service Funds All Trust and Agency Funds The City offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The City’s deferred compensation plans assets are with Nationwide Retirement Solutions and ICMA Retirement Corporation. The Nationwide Retirement Solutions and ICMA Retirement Corporation invests employee account assets in various investment options as directed by the individual employee. Accordingly, these assets are neither controlled by the City nor subject to this investment policy. 3.0 Prudence The City holds to the “prudent investor standard” in that all investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived and acting as a fiduciary of the public trust. The prudent investor standard set forth in Section 53600.3 of the Government Code states: “When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skills, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with the like aims to safeguard the principle and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.” 368 INVESTMENT POLICY 4/24/2017 2 4.0 Objectives The primary objectives, in priority order, of the City of Rolling Hills’ investment activities shall be: 4.1. Safety: Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. “Safety” means that the overall value of City funds shall not be diminished in the process of securing and investing those funds or over the duration of the investments. 4.2. Liquidity: The City of Rolling Hills’ investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated. The liquidity of each type of investment is included in its description in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy. 4.3. Return on Investment (Yield): The City of Rolling Hills investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. In general, the California Government Code limits authorized investments to those classes of securities which have lower risk (and therefore lower yields) than other higher risk investment choices. In each investment transaction, the anticipated return on investment is subordinate to the preceding requirement of credit and investment risk. 5.0 Delegation of Authority The City Council has the authority to select financial institutions for the City’ investment and bank accounts. The City Council has designated the City Council Finance / Budget Committee, the City Manager, and the City Finance Director with the responsibility for decisions and operations for the following investment and operating bank accounts: Operating Bank Accounts  Local Agency Fund administered by the Treasurer of the State of California  Money market savings accounts  Checking accounts Certificates of Deposits/Negotiable Certificates of Deposits or Time Deposits Certificates of Deposits, Negotiable Certificates of Deposit or Time Deposits with commercial banks and /or savings and loan associations issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association, or a federal association (as defined by Section 5102 of the Financial Code), a state or federal credit union with maturities ranging from 30 days to three years. 369 INVESTMENT POLICY 4/24/2017 3 6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interest: Officers and employees involved in the investment process are required by the City of Rolling Hills’ and State Government Code Section 81000 to disclose annually to the City Council any material financial interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the City and further to disclose any large personal financial / investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City, particularly with regard to the time of purchase and sales, as part of the City’s conflict of interest reporting requirements. Said employees are also prohibited from accepting gifts proffered as a direct result of being employees of the City. 7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers, Institutions and Portfolio Managers: The Finance Director will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services, including portfolio management. No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository as established by State law. Financial institutions authorized to provide investment services to the City, including portfolio management, shall utilize security broker / dealers who are duly licensed and authorized to provide investment services in the State of California. Anyone providing financial services to the City, including portfolio management must adhere to the City’s investment policies as adopted by the City Council. 8.0 Authorized and Suitable Investments: The surplus funds of the City may be invested in any of the following list of eligible securities. Surplus funds are defined as those funds not immediately needed for City operations excepting those minimum balances required by the City’s banks as compensation for services rendered to the City, or such other funds as otherwise determined by the Finance Director or City Manager. The list of eligible securities is drawn from the approved investments contained in the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq., limited further by the provisions of this policy. For eligibility as a City investment, the following restrictions should be added to those contained in the California Government Code Sections 53601 et seq. They are: 8.1 U.S. Treasury Bonds, Notes & Bills – “Strips” and “Cubes” The principal and interest portions of U.S. Treasury securities are issued by the Federal Government. Frequently, broker / dealers make a market in these securities by separating the principal and interest components and marketing them separately. The principal portions of their “stripped” securities are marketed at deep discounts. “Strips” and “Cubes” do not provide income streams during the term of the investment, but rather pay a “par” amount at maturity. This makes these investments somewhat more volatile than standard U.S. Treasury securities. The City will not invest in “strips” or “cubes.” 8.2 U.S. Government Agencies There are numerous government agencies listed which issue debt instruments but many lack the liquidity necessary to fit the City’s portfolio requirements possibly including, for example, the issues of Federal Farm Credit Bank, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank, and the Student Loan Mortgage Corporation. The City will not purchase these government agency securities. 370 INVESTMENT POLICY 4/24/2017 4 8.3 Repurchase Agreements A repurchase agreement is a contractual agreement between a financial institution or dealer and the City in which the City lends its funds to the financial institution or dealer for a certain number of days at a stated rate of interest. In return, the City takes title to securities as collateral until the funds and interest are repaid. The City will not enter into repurchase agreements. 8.4 Medium Term Corporate Notes The City will not purchase medium term corporate notes. 8.5 Commercial Paper and Corporate Bonds The City will not purchase commercial paper or corporate bonds. 8.6 Prohibited Investments The list of eligible securities contained in the California Government Code is extensive and includes a number of categories which are not suitable investments for City funds because of limitations in the liquidity of the instruments or the interest rates obtainable thereon. The categories in the list which have such limitations are: The notes or bonds or any obligations of the State of California or of any local agency or district of the State of California. Notes, bonds or other obligations issued by any other state or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The city shall not invest any funds pursuant to Section 53600, et. Seq., in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity. 9.0 Collateralization: All City of Rolling Hills’ investments shall be collateralized as required by the State Government Code. 10.0 Maximum Maturities: To the extent possible, the City of Rolling Hills will match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly invest in securities maturing more than one (3) years from the date of purchase. 11.0 Internal Control: The City’s external auditor with the support from the Finance Director shall annually conduct an independent review of the internal controls. Additionally, the City’s external auditor with support from the Finance Director will annually perform a financial audit. Both may be conducted at the same time, when the City’s annual financial audit performed. The external auditor will be an independent certified public accountant who performs his work under generally accepted auditing standards as adopted by the Auditing Standards Board (ASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 371 INVESTMENT POLICY 4/24/2017 5 12.0 Performance Standards: The investment portfolio shall be designated with the objective of obtaining a rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, commensurate with the investment risk constraints and the cash flow needs of the City. 13.0 Investment Policy Adoption: The City Council shall consider and adopt a written Investment Policy annually and accept quarterly Investment Reports as provided in Government Code Section 53646 et al. Policy Administrative History: Adopted September 24, 2007 Revised and Adopted February 23, 2009 Revised and Adopted March 8, 2010 Reviewed and Adopted February 28, 2011 Reviewed and Adopted May 14, 2012 Reviewed and Adopted April 22, 2013 Reviewed and Adopted March 24, 2014 Reviewed and Adopted April 27, 2015 Reviewed and Revised April 25, 2016 Reviewed and Adopted April 24, 2017 372 1 Finance / Budget / Audit Committee April 27, 2020 6:00 PM Meeting Notes Participants Jeff Pieper, Mayor James Black, Councilmember Elaine Jeng P.E., City Manager Terry Shea, Finance Director Jim Walker, Accountant Meredith Elguira, Director of Planning and Community Services Review Investment Policy; Financial, Budget and Debt Policy; and Asset Capitalization Policy. Staff indicated they have reviewed the aforementioned policies as well as the City’s external auditors and are not recommending any changes to the Investment Policy and the Asset Capitalization Policy at this time. Staff is recommending the following changes to the Financial, Budget & Debt Policies: 1. Section 6. Reserve Policies, Enterprise Fund (e.g. refuse collection). The current policy calls for cash reserves of $66,200. The new Contract with Republic includes a line of credit thereby reducing or eliminating the need for a Rainy Day Fund in the Refuse Fund. With the City subsidizing the Refuse Charge, we are proposing to set the Cash Reserve amount each year as to the amount of the General Fund subsidy. Included in the Budget process would be an annual transfer out from the General Fund to the Refuse Fund for the projected subsidy. 2. Include in the Reserve Section of the Policy the City’s established PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Program Section 115 Trust, to determine the required balance of the fund and authorized uses of the funds. 3. In Section 7. Budget Policies, A. Categories of Funds - adding the LA County Measure W Fund and changing the number of funds from 14 to 15. 4. Staff would like to add a section to the Budget Policies for the carryover of previously approved items in the prior fiscal year for unexpended capital projects. Recommendation No. 1 Discussion 373 Page 2 of 4 Staff explained the City has been absorbing the rate increase to Republic and not passing it on to the homeowners for last few years. For FY 2019/20 the City is paying Republic Services $1,204.51 per parcel and collecting $1,100 per parcel, for a difference of $104.51 and for 685 parcels the difference is $71,589. The current rate increase for FY 2020-21 is 7.4% which brings amount the City is paying to Republic to $1,293.64 per parcel, and with this increase being absorbed as well that brings the total difference to $132,643 per year. Councilmember Black indicated the City should continue with the subsidy. Mayor Pieper and Councilmember Black were in agreement to set the Cash Reserve Requirement for the Refuse Fund at the annual amount of the General Fund subsidy and budget it as a transfer to the Refuse Fund. Jim Walker discussed the City’s annual transfer from the Refuse Fund to the General Fund of $24,000 for the City’s administrative costs for the Refuse Fund. If we are going to transfer funds from the General Fund for the Cash Reserve should we stop with the $24,000 transfer the other way? After some discussion it was agreed to continue with the Transfer. Recommendation No. 2 Discussion: Staff was looking for direction regarding the required balance of the PARS Pension Rate Stabilization Section 115 Trust Balance (Trust) and authorized uses of the funds. Staff indicated at June 30, 2019 the unfunded pension liability was $239,626, and we would like to make that up over the next two fiscal years. The City Manager was asked if she agreed with that and she did. Mayor Pieper indicated he would like to see the balance of the Trust at the unfunded PERS liability amount, and if there are funds available we should be setting them aside in the Trust as the unfunded liability amount is always changing. Councilmember Black did not agree with adding anything to the policy concerning the various proposed uses of the Trust funds. Councilmember Black indicated we need to be putting money aside each year and it does not have be over the next two years. He indicated we should be setting money aside every year if we have extra funds available. Jim Walker asked if we should add to the Policy that a portion of the General Funds annual surplus be pledged to fund the Trust account. The Committee is recommending that for Fiscal Year 2020-21 the City would budget a $50,000 transfer to the Trust, and as part of the Mid-Year process maybe allocating an additional $50,000. Recommendation No. 3 Discussion: The Committee is recommending to add the LA County Measure W Fund and changing the number of funds from 14 to 15, to the Categories of Funds section of the Budget Policies. Recommendation No. 4 Discussion: 374 3 Staff explained the current budget policy only addresses the operating portion of the budget and all unexpended appropriations lapse. We are recommending adding a section dealing with unexpended capital projects and carrying over the unexpended appropriations to the next fiscal year. The City Manager explained these would be approved projects that have come to the City Council for approval. These type of projects usually are spent over two or more fiscal years. For the current budget Staff was talking about the ADA City Hall Project and the Tennis Court Project. Councilmember Black was okay with carrying over the unexpended appropriations for those two projects but does not think the City needs a blanket policy for this. Mayor Pieper indicated the policy should address those projects that were approved and started and those projects that will be completed. The Committee then recommended adding a section concerning capital projects and each project for carryover would be evaluated and approved by the Committee annually. Consideration of Update to Schedule of Fees and Charges The City Manager indicated actual revenue from Building Permit related fees are down in comparison to last year’s numbers at the third quarter mark. It is unknown if the decrease in revenue is due to less overall development projects in Rolling Hills or a decrease in the number of projects due to the lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She also indicated there is some uncertainty with the pandemic of what may happen with the City’s property tax revenue. These are the City’s two major sources of revenue. The City Manager went over the Schedule of Fees and Charges and indicated that Staff is recommending only one change to the current schedule. Consideration to roll back the multiplier for Building Permit and related fees to 2.5%, the multiplier that was approved by the City Council for Fiscal Year 2017/18. Councilmember Black was not in favor of raising the multiplier to 2.5% at this time. Mayor Pieper asked what the difference would have been for this year if it was still at 2.5%, and Jim Walker indicated the LA County is four months behind in reporting for this year so the numbers are not available as of yet. Mayor Pieper indicated he would like to leave the multiplier where it is and we can see where we are at Mid-year and if needed we could bring it back later for discussion. 375 Page 4 of 4 The Committee is recommending leaving the multiplier for Building Permit and related fees at 2.25%. The Committee Members indicated that all of the other fees were fine and were not recommending any changes at this time. Notes prepared by: Terry Shea 376 Agenda Item No.: 8.C Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER LAYOUT OPTIONS TO BRING EXISTING RESTROOMS AT CITY HALL TO COMPLY WITH ADA CODES, AND SELECT AN OPTION TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: On January 27, 2020, the City Council engaged Pacific Architecture and Engineering Inc. (PAE) to prepare a set of construction plans to bring City Hall into compliance with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes. PAE was provided with a copy of the City's draft ADA Transition Plan completed by Disability Access Consultants (DAC) paid for by the City's insurance provided CJPIA. PAE was tasked to address the deficiencies listed in the draft ADA Transition Plan for City Hall. This includes the front door, the pathways, the public counter, the Council Chamber, and the restrooms. DISCUSSION: The first focus of PAE's work is the restrooms as the restrooms require major work due to existing space constraints. Improvements needed at the restrooms will dictate the manner in which the other improvements will be constructed at City Hall. PAE worked with staff to develop many options with the priority to be in full compliance with ADA and relevant codes, consideration for functionality, and considerations for budget and impacts to City Hall operations during construction. PAE was asked to the extent possible, keep all necessary improvements within the existing footprint of the building. Attached to this report are five options for consideration with high level construction cost ranking by PAE. Option 1 (Cost #1, #1 being the most cost effective) This option would create three separate All Gender restrooms in the existing restroom locations. One of the three restrooms has to be ADA compliant. This option would eliminate the closet space holding the water heater, refrigerator, the telephone box/wires, cables and switches for the City's computer network, and the small kitchenette. The uses eliminated by the new restrooms would need to be replaced elsewhere in City Hall. 377 Option 2 (Cost #2) This option would keep the men and women's restrooms in the current locations but both sets of restrooms would need to be converted into single use. The entry way into the restrooms would need to be widened to meet building code. This option would create an ADA restroom in the current copy room. To access the ADA restroom, the public counter would need to be rotated 90 degrees. This option would diminish the footprint of the existing copy room. Option 3 (Cost #3) The restrooms would be moved to the copy room. The public counter would be rotated 90 degrees to allow a walkway from the front door to the new restrooms. There would be a women's restroom and an All Gender restroom. Both sets of restrooms would be ADA compliant. In place of the existing restrooms, a copy room, a meeting room and additional storage room would be created. This option separates the public part of the house from the staff side of the house but diminishes considerably the existing office space that needs to house three employees. Option 3.5 (Cost #3.5) This option is a variation of Option 3 with the All Gender restroom placed in portions of the lobby rather than the office space. As with Option 3, this layout would allow the creation of a meeting room and preserve the office space for three employees. Option 4 (Cost #4) This option plots ADA compliant restrooms in the existing location. As with Option 1, this layout would displace a number of existing uses that need replacement elsewhere in City Hall and would require the widening of the existing hallway by shrinking the offices located across the restrooms. The cost ranking provided by PAE is specific to the cost of improving the restrooms. It should be noted that the overall impacts of the options presented are currently not available because the project is in the early stages of development. It should also be noted that as a part of the PAE's scope of work, PAE will develop options for consideration and based on a selected option will further develop the design plans for the overall improvements. Should the City decide to change the selected option necessitating changes to the overall improvement plans as the project progresses, the City may incur additional design fees. Evaluating the five options, Option 4 was eliminated as the layout would require changes to many other components of City Hall unnecessarily and also it is the most expensive option. Option 1 is ranked the most economical option but it would require external customers to traverse through a small opening at the front lobby, through working offices to access restrooms. This option would require the replacement of other uses that may be more costly to replace than to keep in its existing locations. Also given the unknown environment as the world return to day to day activities due to a temporary shut down to slow the pandemic, this option would not create a separation between public and private use. Option 2 is ranked the second most economical option. This option would create a separation between the public and private use, keep existing uses intact but additional structural work is necessary to be compliant with the building code. Options 3 and 3.5 offer functionality, the separation of public and private uses, the addition of a much needed meeting room and locates areas to replace displaced uses. Between Option 3 and 3.5, Option 3.5 would be preferred to keep the office space as is to accommodate three existing employees that occupy that space. Staff recommends that the City Council select Option 3.5. FISCAL IMPACT:378 In FY 2019-2020, $30,000 was budgeted for architectural/engineering services for the City Hall ADA Improvement project. The City Council engaged the services of PAE on January 27, 2020 for amount not-to-exceed $36,744.16. The City Council also approved to fund the shortfall of $6,722.16 from the funds set aside for the Tennis Court Improvement project. It is unknown at this time the overall cost of bringing City Hall into compliance with ADA and relevant codes. If the City Council approves the recommended option, it is anticipated that PAE can further develop the design plans in the months of May and June 2020 to provide a good estimate of the overall cost of improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on the options developed to bring the restrooms at City Hall to comply ADA codes, selection Option 3.5 and direct staff to proceed with development of design plans. ATTACHMENTS: ADA_Restrooms_Options_2020_May.pdf 379 COUNCIL CHAMBERLOBBYRECEPTIONCITY MANAGERARCHITECTURAL ROOMWORKROOMARCHITECTURAL VAULTHT:8'2"23'-734"11'-7"HT:8'2"15'-818"2'-218"CASEWORKCASEWORK 3'6" high10'-1"31'-6"31'-4"20'-10"15'-5"23'-6"EACH DOOR 3'32'-6"31'-7"5'CEILING 8 '2"10'-6"3'-5"3'-612"15'-5"15'-634"11'32'-6"24'-6"15'-012"DOOR 2-10WIDE, 7'9 HIGHT3'-10"GLASS WALL WOOD FRAME15'-6"CASEWORK 3 '6" high13'-6"CLOSETBOOK KEEPERCITY CLERK\412"3'-334"6'-10"23'-9"16'-034"3'-678"6'-734"10'-214"6'-012"6'-012"3'-1"3'-512"3'-012"2'-2"10'-814"4'-134"1'-712"ITWATER HEATERCOFFEEWOMEN ADAALL GENDER Radius Radius RadiusRadius6'-114"2'-812"4'-8"RadiusRadiusADAWOMENSMENCOMPARISON OF SIZE380 LOBBYRECEPTIONCITY MANAGERARCHITECTURAL ROOMWORKROOMARCHITECTURAL VAULTHT:8'2"23'-734"11'-7"HT:8'2"15'-818"2'-218"CASEWORKCASEWORK 3'6" high10'-1"31'-6"31'-4"20'-10"15'-5"23'-6"EACH DOOR 3'32'-6"31'-7"5'3'-5"3'-612"15'-5"15'-634"11'32'-6"24'-6"15'-012"3'-10"15'-6"CASEWORK 3'6" high13'-6"BOOK KEEPERCITY CLERK\412"ALL GENDER RadiusRadiusADARadiusRadiusRadiusRadiusALL ALL DISPLACEDIT PHONE DATAWATER HEATERCOFFEEREFRIGERATORGENDER GENDER PUBLIC RESTROOMDOORS OPEN OUT TOHALL WAY ODOR NOISEISSUES, NOT ENOUGHROOM FOR DOUBLEDOOR10'-818"23'-778"11'-6"5'-318"5'-914"381 COUNCIL CHAMBERLOBBYRECEPTIONCITY MANAGERARCHITECTURAL ROOMARCHITECTURAL VAULT23'-734"11'-7"HT:8'2"2'-218"CASEWORK31'-6"23'-6"EACH DOOR 3'32'-6"31'-7"5'CEILING 8 '2"10'-6"3'-5"3'-612"15'-634"11'32'-6"24'-6"15'-012"CLOSETBOOK KEEPERCITY CLERK\412"3'-678"6'-112"10'-214"6'-012"6'-012"3'-8"3'-512"3'-012"2'-2"10'-814"4'-134"1'-712"ITWATER HEATERCOFFEEMENSWOMENONE NEW AT LOBBYRadiusRadiusADACOPYALL GENDEREXISTING CORRIDORWIDTHS DO NOT MEETBUILDING CODE SOWALLS NEED TO BEDEMO'D AND WOULDNEED TO BE WIDENEDIF PLUMBING IS ROUTEDHERE, CONSIDERMOVING RESTROOMSAND CAPTURE SPACEAT EXISTINGRESTROOMSCONVERT TO SINGLEUSERCONVERT TO SINGLEUSER382 LOBBYRECEPTIONCITY MANAGEROFFICECOPYBOOK KEEPERCITY CLERKWOMEN ADAALL GENDER RadiusRadius Radiu s Radius6'-114"2'-812"4'-8"RadiusRadiusADASTORAGEMEETING7'-738"10'-214"COFFEEITPUBLICRESTROOM TOBE SEPARATEDFROM PRIVATESPACETHIS COULD BESEPARATEDINTO TWO ALLGENDERS BUTWOULD BEMORE COSTLYMORE WALLSVS TOILETCOMPARTMENTS21'-434"12'-018"SEPARATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE383 384 COUNCIL CHAMBERLOBBYRECEPTIONCITY MANAGERARCHITECTURAL ROOMWORKROOMARCHITECTURAL VAULTHT:8'2"23'-734"11'-7"HT:8'2"15'-818"2'-218"CASEWORKCASEWORK 3'6" high10'-1"31'-6"31'-4"20'-10"15'-5"23'-6"EACH DOOR 3'32'-6"31'-7"CEILING LOW 8 '7.5"CEILING HIGH 13'9"5'3'-5"3'-612"15'-5"15'-634"11'32'-6"24'-6"15'-012"DOOR 2-10WIDE, 7'9 HIGHT3'-10"SLIDING DOOR 3' LEAVESGLASS WALL WOOD FRAME15'-6"CASEWORK 3'6" h igh 13'-6"BOOK KEEPERCITY CLERK\412"3'-512"WOMEN ADAALL GENDER Radiu s RadiusRadius Radiu s6'-114"2'-812"4'-8"Radius Radius ADA3'-378"NOT ENOUGH SPACE IN FRONT OF DOORPER CODE20'-612"10'-818"THIS ORIENTATION DOESNT FIT385 Agenda Item No.: 8.D Mtg. Date: 05/11/2020 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM:ELAINE JENG, CITY MANAGER THRU:ELAINE JENG P.E., CITY MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER AND APPROVE A THREE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. DATE:May 11, 2020 BACKGROUND: The City's budget cycle is one year. Annually in June, the City Council adopts an operating budget with General Fund transfers to capital improvement projects. Because of the one year cycle, the adopted budget resets at the end of the year and capital improvement projects that were not completed within the year would be evaluated again for funding the following year. Typical capital improvement projects span multiple years because these projects require planning, design, public bidding, and construction. To make provisions for all phases of the project, a complete expenditure plan for projects is necessary. Conventionally, the expenditure plan is the Capital Improvement Plan. DISCUSSION: There are several capital improvement projects that have been in the works for the last three years. The first is the improvements at the tennis courts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This project has been programmed and re-programmed since 2017. The project is being delayed so that the City Council can coordinate other improvements at the tennis courts proposed by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). The ADA improvements at City Hall has been discussed in the last three years but was not programmed in operating budgets for two of the last three years. The two projects noted are mandated by a Federal legislation and could potentially present exposure of liabilities to the City if these facilities are not brought up to ADA codes in a reasonable time frame. Installation of sewer mains have been a topic of discussion for the community for the last 30 years. As evident by the enduring conversations on this topic, there is continuous interest in the community to transition from septic tanks to sewer mains. As a subset of the bigger conversation on citywide sewer mains, the City Council initiated a feasibility study for an 8" sewer main along Portuguese Bend Road/Rolling Hills Road in 2017 but does not have a complete project plan to know the time period and overall cost required to complete the installation of the line. In early 2019, the City Council was informed that the neighboring city, Rolling Hills Estates planned to 386 rehabilitate Palos Verdes Drive North between Rolling Hills Road and RHE's eastern city limits. The City Council decided to join RHE to rehabilitate a small segment of Portuguese Bend Road to the Main Gate and the City Hall campus parking lot. The bids received for the City Hall showed higher than expected prices and the City Council decided to reject all bids. This sparked a conversation about the need to rehabilitate the City Hall parking lot, potentially redirecting City Hall stormwater discharge to Bent Canyon Springs just to the east of City Hall and install parking amenities that includes upgrades to existing lighting. To assist the planning of capital improvement projects, staff drafted a three year Capital Improvement Plan showing the estimated cost of projects by phase and by fiscal year for the four projects listed above. The plan also takes into consideration critical paths of all the projects so that they are coordinated. For example, of the four projects, the sewer main must be installed first so that the proposed restrooms at the tennis courts, the Main Gate house, in City Hall and RHCA buildings can be connected. The City Hall campus parking lot rehabilitation should be implemented last to address the trenches from putting in sewer lateral lines. The proposed Capital Improvement Plan is attached to this report. FISCAL IMPACT: If the City Council approves the proposed three year Capital Improvement Plan, the budget for capital improvement projects for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 would be approximately $457,000. A large portion, $400,000 would be funded using the monies deposited into the Utility Fund from years past. In future years, staff would also seek low interest financing provided by CJPIA for ADA related improvements and finally, the rehabilitation of the City Hall campus parking lot is eligible to use Measure R and M transportation funds, Measure A Park fund, and Measure W Clean Water fund for stormwater related elements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on a proposed three year Capital Improvement Plan and direct staff to include the Plan as a part of the annual budget going forward. ATTACHMENTS: CIP_3Years_2020-May-08.pdf 387 PROPOSED 3-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FY2020-2021 TO FY 2022-2023 Current Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost Phase Cost 1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road*Feasibility Study Phase I $11,391 Feasibility Study Phase II $30,000 Design/Construction $400,000 Construction $700,000 2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements**Design $8,000 Construction $50,000 Construction $250,000 3 City Hall ADA Improvements**Design $30,000 Design $7,000 Construction $300,000 4 City Hall campus parking lot improvements***Design $21,000 Design $50,000 Construction $500,000 Total $40,391 $60,000 $457,000 $1,300,000 $500,000 * Possible offset of General Fund with successful grant pursuits. ** Low interest rate financing available through CJPIA for ADA projects with 5 year repay plan. *** Eligible to be funded using a combination of accumulated local returns from Measures R and M transportation funds, Measure A County Park fund, and Measure W Clean Water fund. SCHEDULE Project Description FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 FY 2021-2022 FY 2022-2023 Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe Phase Timeframe 1 8" Sewer Main along Rolling Hills Road*Feasibility Study Phase I Feb 18 - Oct 18 Feasibility Study Phase II May 19-May 20 Design/Construction July20- Feb21, May 21 - Sept 21 Construction May 21 - Sept 21 2 Tennis Courts ADA Improvements**Design Construction May 21 - Sept 21 Construction May 21 - Sept 21 3 City Hall ADA Improvements**Design Jan 20 - Sept 20 Design Jan 20 - Sept 20 Construction July 21 - Nov 21 4 City Hall campus parking lot improvements***Design Design Feb 22 - Jun 22 Construction Aug 22 - Dec 22 388