2500 Planning - Plan Check ProcessPLAN CHECK PROCESS --SCENARIO ON HOW THE PLAN CHECK PROCESS IS
ADMINISTERED IN ORDER TO PREVENT BUILDINGS FROM BEING
CONSTRUCTED BEYOND THEIR ORIGINAL SCOPE OF APPROVAL.
Those in attendance discussed the plan check process as outlined in the staff report. City
Manager Nealis explained the grading confirmation and soil import/export processes
initiated by the City.
Discussion ensued regarding when applicants submit their plans for City approval and for
RHCA Architectural approval. RHCA Manager Peggy Minor reported that usually
applicants submit plans to the RHCA after receiving Planning Commission approval.
Concerns were expressed regarding the submission of "as -built" grading plans. City
Manager Nealis explained the Planning Process Guide used by the City and the grading
sign -off sheet being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Board Member Howroyd
stated that he feels that some County, approvals should be obtained before applicants
submit their projects to the City or the RHCA.
Ca o` l2 fl.•..y JUL
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
' NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
mail: cityoft@_aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 3.C.
Mtg. Date: 8/6/97
DATE: AUGUST 6, 1997
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE PRESIDENT AND RHCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PLAN CHECK PROCESS
BACKGROUND
The plan check process as administered by the City of Rolling Hills follows the
following scenario:
1. Planning staff discusses proposed project at counter with applicant and/or
applicant's representative.
2. If project does not require Planning Commission discretionary review,
Planning staff informs applicant that the project needs to be reviewed and
approved by the Community Association before we can stamp plans to allow
the applicant to apply for plan check to obtain building permits from the
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Building & Safety,
Lomita Office (the County).
3. If project requires Planning Commission discretionary review (i.e. Variance,
Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, or Subdivision Review), Planning
staff informs the applicant of requirements. We also suggest that the
applicant review the proposal with the Community Association staff as well
to make suggestions to have the project comply with their regulations.
4. Special preparations are made for Planning Commission discretionary review
that includes preparation of certified plans, completion of application and
environmental forms, preparation of property owners lists within a 1,000 foot
radius of the property and mailing labels, and payment of application fees.
Advertisement of a public notice is made of the project in the newspaper of
record (The Peninsula News) 10 days before the Commission's meeting. The
PLAN CHECK PROCESS
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Pacer.
Commission meets the 3rd Tuesday of the month at 7:30 PM in the City
Council Chambers. The Commission usually schedules a field trip meeting at
the proposed building site on a Saturday morning between the monthly
meetings. At the end of proceedings, the Planning Commission either
approves a project with certain conditions or denies an the application
because of certain findings.
5 When a project's discretionary review approval by the Planning Commission
has been completed, the applicant must then meet the requirements and
have the approval of the Community Association that is represented by a
stamp and signature.
6. When the plans are approved and stamped by the Community Association,
the applicant must meet all of the conditions of the Planning Commission's
resolution of approval for Planning staff approval that is represented by a
stamp and signature. The zoning case resolution of approval is attached to
the approved plans. In most cases, the requirement of a landscape plan and
bond and an "Affidavit of Approval" that is recorded against the property are
all that is required of the applicant. Sometimes, additional specific conditions
are required of a project before the Planning staff can stamp their approval.
7. At any time during all of these procedures, the applicant may wish to begin
early plan checking, i.e. for geology and soils review, with the County for
which staff may stamp plans, "For Plan Check Only." This procedure does
not allow the applicant to begin any work and is done at the applicant's own
risk.
8. When the Community Association and the Planning staff have signed the
plans, the applicant may take the stamped plans to the County for final
approval so that they can obtain building permits.
9. Planning staff sends a notice to applicants approximately two months before
the one year approval is due to expire. The letter explains that they may
request an extension of a second year from the Planning Commission to
obtain permits or their project approvals will expire.
10. Once building permits are issued, the work must begin within one year which
means that calls for required inspection must be made at certain intervals
during that time or the permits will expire.
11. The County follows a grading permit process that is described in the attached
report presented to the City Council and Planning Commission. We are now
utilizing the recommendations for improvements to the grading
confirmation process described in the report.
PLAN CHECK PROCESS
PAGE 2
This new process is designed to have the most accurate grading plans
submitted to the Planning Commission so as to reduce the likelihood of
grading amendments.
12. As a result of the report described in Paragraph 11, staff has been working on a
"Grading Process Guide" to be signed by the applicant and other professionals
involved in a building project (draft example attached).
HOW THE CITY HANDLES CONSTRUCTION CHANGES THAT ARE BEYOND
THE SCOPE OF APPROVAL.
City staff works closely with the Community Association and the County to see that
all zoning, building and construction codes are adhered to properly in order to make
certain that projects are built according to plan.
On occasion, City staff inspects projects with the County staff to make certain that a
particular project is being constructed according to plan.
We are notified by the County if plans have been amended (i.e., basements or tennis
courts are added) when the plans were in the plan check process at the County.
We are notified when the building inspector notices changes in the field that differ
from the original plans during the inspection process.
We are notified by the Community Association when they notice changes or
differences from the original plans.
We are also notified by neighbors that there is something wrong or illegal with a
project in the field.
When the City is notified that there are changes beyond the scope of approval, the
City requires the property owners to make application to the Planning Commission,
unless the changes are minor and can be handled at the staff level. If the property
owner does not make the proper corrections or fails to submit the appropriate
applications, the City may issue a "Stop Work Order" halting all construction
activity on the project and could ultimately, file a misdemeanor complaint against
the property owner.
During the past two years, the Planning Commission has requested in most cases of
Site Plan Review that any modifications to the project which would constitute
additional structural development require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Commission.
We have also sent letters to local contractors, civil engineers and architects
regarding the grading plan confirmation process in order to make certain that
grading plans and development are accurate.
PLAN CHECK PROCESS
PAGE 3
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
0 RDD DDDD
0 DD/in ii[[6
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1937
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
13101 377.1521
FAX (310) 377.7288
E-mait cityolrh0aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 4-A
Mtg. Date: 04/14/97
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
GRADING PLAN CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
DATE: MARCH 14, 1997
BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission held Tuesday,
March 15, 1997, Planning Commissioners recommended that the City Council
approve the attached proposal relating to changes in the grading plan confirmation
process prior to plans being submitted to the Planning Commission.
As indicated in the attached report, it is staff's goal to have the most accurate
information as possible presented to the Planning Commission. Oftentimes,
conditions in the field become evident after a grading site plan is approved, which
necessitate amendments to the grading plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that members of the City Council
presented or provide appropriate direction.
CRN:mlk
ccgradconf.sta
approve this report as
City
.1 Att., JUL
91)
INCORPORATIO JANUAR" 3E. 1337
NO. 2 ►OATUOUESE WEN0110AO
R011WNO HILL& CALIF. 10271
13101377.1121
FAX W01317.7264
1 -Mt dnw il4s laao
Agenda Item No.: 9-D
Mtg. Date: 03/18/97
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
. SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF OVEMENTSREPORT
A TO ND RECOHEMMEGRA ING
NDATION
REGARDING IM
CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
DATE: MARCH 18, 1997
BACKGROUND
Commission
eld on
At the joint meeting of the was COuncil and
regardingPlanning
he grading confirmationMonday, February 3rd, a report presented
process. At that time, staff was directed to return
adinginspection/s'�e planson with
analysis
recommendations on how to imp 8T
procedures. A copy of that staff report is attached for your information.
As indicated in that report, a grading it is required
9 ofethe existingcut or ground surface.
3 feet or the disturbance exceeds sq.
Currently, the grading plan inspection services are provided through the County of
Los Angeles. Eight -five percent (85%) of
the grading Alhambra. lt Thelcations are
remain remaining
handled through the Los Angeles County office in
fifteen percent (15%) are handled through the County Lomita office.
Currently, if a grading plan does not involve the construction of a new structure, a
visit to the actual site is not conducted by
the Counprobably soils and does not present angineer. In
issue. In
most cases, involving minor grading, p Y
cases where a new structure is proposed,
th�County are
personnel
inspect the site. In either case, recommendations/amendments
ecommendat ons/amendments
provided to the grading contractor/engineer.
was
nted to
he
Therefore, the situation can arise where the to grading
e teitherlan safetytstandardse imposed by
Planning Commission must be amended
the County and/or address soils conditions that have been identified in the soils and
-1-
engineering report. This report is the responsibility of the applicant and is required
by the County. This can result in a significant change to the grading plan that was
considered by the Planning Commission. Currently, these deviations are resolved
through staff approval of the revised grading plan (Minor modification RHMC
17.46.070 A,B,C) or a reapplication before the Planning Commission (Major
modification RHMC 17.46.070 A,D).
The County relies heavily on the civil engineer's stamped plan that is submitted by
the engineer for a particular project. Specifically, Section 7020.5 of the 1994 Uniform
Building Code requires the field engineer, soils engineer or engineering geologist to
notify the building official in writ'ng of rmance times these correctiowith an asroved
take
grading plan. However, history has show us that often
place without the County or the City being advised of the need to amend the grading
plan.
al of Pr osed Gradin Plan Check Modifications
The goal of modifying the grading plan check procedures for the City of Rolling
Hills is quite simple. It is staff' desire
actual proposed 'ng Commission grading activity inethe field
view, as
closely as possible, what represents
when they are considering plans during the public hearing process. We recognize,
however, that there may be deviations based upon actual field conditions which
cannot be handled until they are actually encountered in the field.
Our second goal is to have the grading plan in the most final status when it is
reviewed by the Planning Commission which will minimize the likelihood of as -
graded conditions beyond the original scope of approval being presented to the
Planning Commission is an 'as -graded' modification fashion.
o sed M dification
As stated earlier, the County reviews not only the grading plan but the soils and
geology reports required for the grading permit following approval of the project by
the Planning Commission. Staff proposes to implement the following which can be
implemented by staff on a discretionary basis depending upon the quantity, location,
or sensitivity of the graded area. Discretionary implementation of these procedures
would be as follows:
Std; Upon reviewing an initial plan being submitted for Planning
Commission review, staff will have the discretion to request that the County soils
engineering geology personnel review that plan to determine its probable feasibility
as presented on the grading plan itself. This would serve as an administrative
review of the plan by the County.
Ste If it is felt that the grading represents activity that is more sensitive,
staff will require the County to conduct a field inspection of the proposed site and
-2-
review
s
l
conducte
grading plan beyond the administrativenvolve sst(Step
ff, a he applicant l alndh a County.
during normal working hours and will
If the grading plan appears to be highlyto sensitive, ubmitted andll evaluateduire the
by
applicant to prepare the soils and geology reports
the County prior to submission of the case to the Planning Commission.
It is our hope that implementing on� ormore of these eteps will enable aluated n terms of
the
Planning Commission to review a grading plan that has been evaluated
its feasibility in the field. It is also felt oweve
Hhat star this represents currently has the hinnto
the
require this information of applicants.
way we currently conduct businessand
n it is wil assstdstaffa in Pmplementing these
t resentation of this
information to the Planning Commission
new procedures.
osts For This Increased Service
Currently, the County already charges the City and the applicant for review of a soils
and geology report in conjunction with a grading permit. These costs will not
change.
However, office review of grading plans (Step 1) are estimated to take approximately
2-4 hours at the County office at $56.00 per hour. Therefore, the cost for the office
review is estimated to be $112.00-224.00 per project.
If staff initiates the second level (Step 2) and requires a field visit by the County
personnel, that cost is estimated to be an additional $280.00 per project. Therefore,
approximate costs associated with a field review prior to Planning Commission
review will be $329.00-504.00.
Presently, staff is not proposing to amend the fees associated that with thee sitea lan
n
review process to cover any of these costs. It is recommended
these new review procedures and review any amendments to our fee schedule in
the future as appropriate.
It is not staff's desire to create unnecessary delays for applications. That is primarily
why we have recommended that staff have the discretion to implement Step 1, 2 or
3 depending upon the scope and nature of the project. According to the County of
Los Angeles, it is estimated that the office review of the grading plan will take
approximately 5 days. To complete a field review with the office review, will take
just a few days longer.
Clearly, if we require an applicant to prepare the soils and geology reports prior to
submission to the Planning Commission, delays will result. However, it should be
understood that the preparation of a soils and geology report is already required by
an applicant. However, this is normally completed following Planning
Commission approval for a project.
Ulna=
It cannot be overemphasized that it is staff's
. It
goal t
o �rhoped that these addeto the d
Commission the most accurate grading plan p ,ble
procedures will assist applicants with presenting a more detailed grading plan so
there are fewer amendments following actuaapproval.
RFCOMMENDATIOPI
It is recommended that members of the
in the City Council.
consider these
recommendations and provide a recommendation
CRN:mlk
r, eco h,.a.u.
•4-
4/5/'97
Craig:
Following our meeting the other day in your office, I reread the your Memo
entitled: CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GRADING CONFIRMATION
PROCESS. Somehow in the last Planning Commission meeting, we focused on
our differences in the use of specification tolerances for grading quantities. It all
got started from the word "confirmation' in the title of the memo itself which
sidetracked the main issue. Because of our meeting, I better understand where
the ideas are focused. I have the following thoughts:
1. I basically agree with the concept put forth in the memo of providing an
improved process resulting in more realism in deriving grading estimates before
the applicant comes before the Planning Commission. THis improvement should
"drive" the estimated numbers much closer to their final graded values. The
applicant will benefit from a better estimate of the size and cost of the job. This
will save the Planning Commission a lot of time as the projected numbers should
be accurate enough that a second or third appearance before us, caused by
overly "optimistic" numbers, will be unnecessary.
2. I recommend you change the word "Confirmation" in the memo title, to
"Estimation"
3. Staff has identified a serious problem in the first paragraph on p2 of the
memo. That is, that key persons(like soils engineer, geologist and/or field
engineer) on the job were not consistently reporting non-conformance to the
grading plan. Where is the flaw in this process? Obviously, this problem has to
be rectified. I would hope that the "Notice" that I offered on the subject of
"Unapproved Site Development" would help put some extra teeth in our code
requirements re the actionslnactions of contracting professionals.
Arvel
PS A thought on estimating grading quantities shrinkage: Shrinkage quantities
need to be estimated not as a percentage of the net cut and fill quantities, but
rather on the basis of overall excavation quantities which are moved. I think it'd
be a good idea to have total grading quantities identified & documented at our
meetings in addition to net quantities which we currently require. That way, we all
could be sensitive to shrinkage, especially when fill quantities are being counted
on for a specific use other than just spreading the fill over the property. Take an
example where cut and fill are approved at 1000 cu. yds, but 10,000 cu. yds. are
moved to stabilize the property. Assuming 10% shrinkage on 10,000 cu. yds.,
there'd be no fill dirt left for the cut and fill balance and, the shortage exceeds the
export criterion.
Cu,.1 R0/t, J/dh
INCORPORATID JANUARY 211. 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE DEMO ROAD
ROILING HILLS Cats. X0211
63101 371.1531
FAX OM 311.125$
E•net eityobT4solcom
Agenda Item No.: 3-E
Mtg. Date: 02/03/97
gyp'. HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILPLANNING
IL
HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A. ADMINT ISTRATIVE REGARDING
MODIFICADTION
ING
CONFIRMATION A
PROCESS.
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1997
BACKGROUND
At the regular City Council meeting held Monday, January 27, 1997, Councilmember
Tom Heinsheimer requested that this item be presented at this evening's meeting.
wading Confirmation Process
Currently, the County of Los Angeles provides grading inspection and plan check
services to the City of Rolling Hills
through
co contract.
n this The
County of Los Angeles
serves as the City's Building andSafety Inspector
A grading permit is required when the cut or fill exceeds 3 feet or the disturbance
exceeds 2,000 sq. ft. of the existing ground surface. Authority for this permit
requirement is provided under Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 15.04.120
(attached). According to Los Angeles County District Engineer Lata Thakar, 85% of
the grading permit applications in the City of Rolling Hills are handled through the
Los Angeles County office in Alhambra.
In cases where grading is proposed on an undeveloped othehe site is issuancevoflted by the
a grading
Los Angeles County Geologist from Alhambra prior to
permit. If, however, the grading is proposed on a developed lot, an inspection is
normally not conducted by the requests which st. The
handled remaining
hrough t 15% of he grading
permits generally involve minor q
County offices in Lomita.
Following issuance of the grading permit, major deviations from the approved
grading plan are reported to the County through the normal building inspection
process handled by the local inspector out of the Lomita office. In all of the
inspection procedures, the plans submitted by the engineer for the project weigh
heavily in the determination of the appropriateness of the grading. All plans are
required to be stamped and certified by a certified civil engineer as accurate and
COrrect.
From time to time, staff is alerted to alleged violations of approved soil
import/export conditions on specific lots. Staff has implemented the following
changes to our procedures to help alleviate this activity in the future.
First, we have modified the presentation of our staff reports to include a separate
paragraph identifying whethere ebasement is ts chowever, tded in ahey are regulatedro d bment.
ythe
The City does not generally regulate basemen
County for safety purposes.
Our site plan review application contains a question as to whether a basement is
proposed in conjunction with a specific development. However, even when that
application is submitted indicating that a basement is not proposed, oftentimes
when the building plan is submitted
which,Cf ut annotonty for plan chec, be balankedton thens a
site
basement. This results in excess
becomes available for exportation.
It is our hope that adding a declaration to each staff report that a basement is or is
not proposed, that handling of
any excess
soil on site can be addressed during the
Planning Commission pub hearing process.
Second, we have significantly changed our procedures for the administrative
approval of the export or import of soil authorized under Sections 15.04.150 and
15.04.170 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Highlights of these changes include
the requirement that a certified engineer must submit this request and that the
County will conduct a pre-import/export inspection, a during construction
import/export inspection and a post import/export inspection. Correspondence to
area engineers and graders regarding this new procedure is included with this staff
report.
Third, we are finalizing our Planning Department property profile system which
will eventually enhance the application edb
, Weanticipate
lev f detailed
el
information that will be con by Planning Commission.
that we will have a demonstration ready for this system in early March.
Administrative Modifications to Develo men
Section 15.04.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code prohibits the export or import
of soil to or from any lot in the City. Additionally, that Section requires that grading
plans shall only be approved for grading that is balanced on the site. Paragraph (3) of
.2.
that Section allows the City Manager to grant an exception to the requirements of
the import/export or balanced cut and fill requirements under specified conditions.
These conditions include that construction fthestrudure on the soil could not havelot
or parcel has
been foreseen
commenced, that the need to import or export
prior to commencement of construction, aord haeither
of soitthe
orsthat an emre ergency
ot be
completed without the requested import export
condition exists due to the threat of land subsidence or other imminent danger.
Additionally, Section 17.16.230 of the Municipal Code entitled 'Balanced Grading
Required', establishes the prohibition of export or import of materials in connection
with any grading performed in the City.
Under Section 17.46.070 of the Municipal Code entitled 'Subsequent Modifications',
the City Manager has the authority to review and act upon minor modifications to
development projects. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review and
act upon major modifications.
Under Paragraph (C) of that Section, evidence of an approved minor modification
shall be provided in writingtothe property owner and shall be filed with the
original site plan review approval.
Traditionally, minor modifications usually involve minor additional structures to
an approved project in an area that was not considered the subject of contention
during the original site plan application.
than,nor ortionoofhhetions projectewastermined received at
the nature of the amendment p
the Planning Commission level.
est for
he
In all of the cases, either fed City approval on a ormal letter of approvalrforuthe ametndment minors
amendment by the applicant or a
fincluded in the case file for that particular property.
Reasons that administrative modifications are granted include:
• A modification at the request of the applicant which does not drastically change
the scope of the project.
• A modification at the request of adjoining property owners to settle matters of
differences.
RECOMMENDATION
It would be in order for members of the Rolling Hills City Council and Planning
Commission to consider this report and provide appropriate direction to staff. The
City Council may wish to consider if how totimproveldtheestaff to return with a grading inspection/sitereport
plan
with recommendations on
analysis procedures.
CRN:mlk
riding sta
-3-
15.04.120 Section 3306.1 amended. Section 3306.1 of
the Bull .ng Co a is amen a to rea :
Section 3306.1: A person shall not perform any
grading without first obtaining a grading permit to do
so from the Building Official. A separate permit
shall be obtained for each site.
EXCEPTIONS: A grading permit shall not be required
for:
(8) An excavation and/or fill or a combination
thereof which is less than three feet in depth below
the existing ground surface, provided that said exca-
vation and/or fill or combination thereof which is
less than three feet in depth does not
tscover er, more than
2,000 square feet of existing ground
(Ord. 257-U S1(part), 1995).
r-
Crty
JOCY ,A.A:4 K
MayoB. AUDI LAY
Mow Pro Twn
rdER
Mont E
Cov+c>twrtei
00C fnEv PEMELL 0.0.5.
Cosctrortior
December 6, 1996
I2f/i,JI:I, iscoaro+aTto JANuA*1 34. len
SENT TO ATTACKED LIST
N0. $ ►OATVOV(Ut UND O
POLLING HMS, C. a11M
aux $11.1431
FAA gig 111.11$.
Equal d1ydt4eologo
Sections 15.04.150 through 15.04.180 of the Rolling r Hills Municipal
Codel to provide
and fromhe
conditions and authority for the importation oexportation
development site following the commencement 1991.
Fromt tme tn. o time thei City
was added to the Rolling Hills Municipal
receives complaints that importation or exportation eseof comPl laintsmay hon a case -by -case
exceeded the
quantity of soil permitted. We have handled
e
basis and have worked with the professionals completely effective.
ofth developments on
these sites. This process has not proved
l
ation
It has come to our attention that too oftHlele� he oEetheitted City.lelteseems of hats the vast
or
exportation is exceeded without the knowledge
no g nt is
majority of soil exportation occurs on prohcts where a ave been granted eby the dPlanning
a
residential development after approvals
Commission. Although the City does not g erlly gu regulate
genuinenconcern to
building safety, the movement of soil to and from properties and
the City. The addition of a basement on a previously
ema u tlesult in the imbalanced tportatiion projectf o 1
may lead to the availability of soil which then y tion
to another property in the community. The Site Plan Reviewv or ppl anot abasement already
contains a question for the applicant to identify
is
proposed for a residential development project.
®•....4 . •• . • I • w.•
Page 2
Therefore, in order to maintain the integrity
the crocessanges fond r consideration fairness
to all
parties, are implementing exportation of sil one development projects.
of
importation or expo
Effective immediately,Militia when any application is submitted. Additionally, a separate paragraph will
be included in staff reports presented to the Planning Commission id tentifyi
ng
whether the �.�ntieant nas de 1a e of the
d t at a a men
For importation or exportation of soil following commencement of construction,
tbsffeyciaivree
m ly, wtten r
submittedediate acen'fled civ eer requn ired under engineering company
Municipal letterhead. Code
The letter must contain the information q
(attached).
When this letter is presented, the County will conduct (1) a pre -soil
importation/exportation inspection on all affected properties, (2) inspection during
the actual transfer of soil, and (3) a follow-up inspection upon completion of the soil
transfer. At that point, a signed letter by the certified civil engineer will be required
and must state the quantity of soil �nformhat was
at on actually
mustexchanged.
also be included.Quantity
of Failure soil pto
truck, and number of truck trips
comply with these provisions will result in a stop work order.
We understand that from time to time, conditions in the field warrant the
importation or exportation of soil. However, when it is anticipated that the export
or import exceeds the specifically authorized quantity or 500 cubic yards maximum,.
it is imperative that City staff be contacted immediately to address the situation.
Provisions to seek a Variance exist sst` in the situations.
Code or remedies are available
at the staff level to address these
Additionally, should the County of
exportation to satisfy safety issues, you
we can become involved in this process
Los Angeles require soil importation or
must contact City staff immediately so that
as early as possible.
ld
ns
Disregard of these provisions cannot choice, but butbetot foerated. rward violaons floese thepofficeoof the
violated, staff will have no
e
District Attorney.
We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to maintaining the orderly
development of properties in this community. We hope to work with you to assist
you in completing your paperwork, ut ask that accurate information be provided at
all stages of the development process.
Page 3
Should you wish to discuss any of this further, otfi cou are
doocsremain opensand we are
office at
your convenience. As always, our City N
willing to discuss any aspects of this situation that you deem necessary.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
"-
Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
CRN:mik
Iarr poilex •1.tin
CC City Council
City Attorney
Planning Commission
RHCA Board of Directors
Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager
RHCA Architectural Committee
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
Lata Thakar, District Engineer
Rafael Bernal, Building Inspector
Ed Acosta, Building Inspector
fr C.o.r Av.
tl.vr Canoe ha ArsoFva
MA t Amos.
2)T211h.4.a iha
Teeles a. CA 1450!
Mr Tara Wear*
Tema O.—,.— . r .
4211 C1sA+mapl4 Aaa
Um; teed► CA 10101
W Sara M. teka•
tats t.pa***6 Crpneioe
M07 Cud 1.441 Rod
Rrde ►i10 Yrrem. CA
10715
Mee Owil Akio
00r• Cee+•. koceJ.1
I>•77 Cr+4re tM
Tv woo. CA 10504
2r Doss *Kam
Soo* let t+'Oase^aS
704 tap rre
him V00mt t. CA 10114
lib Coop Sm.
ARveeM
Malay Cr
Pea. Ve 4ar Lora CA 11714
Mr Map I laMoe.
9v4 Cann boa Arrocvra
MA It Ammon
DM Maeebee tM
Taweso . CA 10005
Ir Aaecar Mk***
1117�a0k
Rad* ►.o Vedas. CA
Ma Lama I. &A
tdroa t.grwarnms Carywwa
210) Corti R.4r Rod
bode Ala Vase, CA
10715
W Crm Oedemas
G+ CArowoe Axenre+
11001Dome A'.S" 101
R.evdr k ink CA 10010
Mu Rap Mani
Rdrae MA A,ct0M11
11)14 Naas al Aar. Su 200
Tenon. CA 10011
Ms Nail PUN.
I 0 Sea 1W
taps MIL CA 171Q1
1r 1 . Rat
Rae and Amoo aee
Y!3 huh Carr Ngt.a1
Terns CA 10500
Mr Dent 61402
:RJob 0642 tV18a""L 144
1112 two $1.4
toeru.CA 10111
W ,.du.l .
Islretodi I Aroc•sin
2100 A.vpea Cwt SM ?00
Ten u.a.CA 10601
Mr La.** Rob Arm
1m►+ar Maw AI04111
11}10 t+aaa a1 Aare. See 201
Tarim. CA 10511
15.0/.15 :. on 1015.4 amended 'n 7015 of
the sum,.. e•
t �t a xcevat lor... • is
to
add subsection 101S.4 to reads
1015.4 BALANCED CUT AND PILL RATIO.
1. No export or import
ofsoil shall be permitted
from or to any lot in th City.
2. No grading plan for which a permit is required
shall be approved
unless
the the
amount ofamount
soiisoil
be tilledcut
from the site equals
on the site.
3. The City Manager may grant an exception to the
'requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph (d) to
allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed
S00 cubic yards it he or she finds, based up nawrittten
reports and other information submitted, t
ll of
the following conditions are present: (a).construc-
tion of a structure on the lot or parcel has com-
menced, (b) that the need to import or export the soil
could not have been foreseen prior to commencement of
construction, and (c) that either the structure cannot
be completed without the requested import or export of
soil or. that an emergency condition exists due to the
threat of la ) s
land subsidence or other imminent danger.
(Ord. 257-U S1(P
173 (Rolling Hills 5/96)
1S.. 160-15.04.170
15.04.160 Subsection 7016.3 amended. Subsectionitled
7016. o ect on ot
Slope,' is amended to read:
7016.3 TILL SLOPS. slopes
o erticalt orll no ce�xceed
a
steepness of two horizontal to ne v
a vertical height ariancsttor3a,steeper orunless
higherthe -
owner receives a v
vertical height fill Rsl slope
from thepPlanning
pursuant .sion of the City of g
provisions of Title
etor of variaaciitopthe provisions of
he
City. 2n applying
this paragraph, the owner shall submit soil teat data
and engineering cficusafetyaand shall and/or stabilityde in
problems
writing any specs exist
on the propertvarhancerisegrant exist or
the proposed
the requested
grading plans are approved.
(Ord. 257-U Sl(part), 1995)•
15.04.170 Subsecentit7e16'Fiadded. isSamended to add a
7016
of the Sul ing e,
new subsection 7016.9 to read:
7016.9 BALANCED CUT AND FILL RATIO.
1. No export or import of soil shall be permitted
from or to any lot in the City.
2. No grading plan for which a permit is required
shall be approved unless the amount of soil to be cut
from the site equals the amount of soil to be filled
on the site.
3. The City Manager may grant an exception to the
requirements of parts 1 and 2 of this paragraph (d) to
allow for the import or export of soil not to exceed
upon written
500 cubic yards if he or she finds, based that all.of
reports and other information submitted,
the following conditions are present:
(a)
construc-
tion of a structure on the lot or parcel has
soil
menced, (b) that the need to import or export
could not have
been
(C)foreseen
eitherprior
the structureecannot
of
construction, and
be completed without the requested import or export of
soil or that an emergency condition exists due to the
threat of la ) 1995).
nd subsidence or other imminent danger.
(Ord. 257-U S1(P
174 (Rolling Hills 5/96)
M04.180-15.08.010
15.04.180 Violations and enalties. 1► . It is un-
lawfu or any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip.
use, occupy or maintain any building or structure or per-
form any grading in the City of Rolling Hills, or cause the
same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the
provisions of the Building Code.
B. penalty. Any person, firm or corporation violat-
ing any of the provisions of the Building Code shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and each such person shall
be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every
day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of
the provisions of the
Building
convictionCode
ofiany shs ted, violationcontinued
or permitted, and upon
such person shall be punishable ibyna fiinenof,
thnot
more
ntyJthan
one thousand dollars or by
for a period of not more than six months, or by both such
fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 257-U S1(part), 1995).
17,16.230 Balanced aradino required. Per the re-
quirements of the City's Building Code (Title 15 of the
Municipal Code), no export of cut materials nor import of
fill materials shall be permitted in connection with any
grading performed in the City, unless otherwise permitted
by the provisions of Title 15. (Ord. 239 S11(part), 1993).
7 .� �._. • . , , A. After a site
plan rev ew app cat on has • en approved, modification of
the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed, including
additions or deletions, may be considered
y the Cityr or Man-
ager or the Planning Commission. The
his
designee shall have the. authority to review and act upon
minor modifications, and the Planning Commission shall have
the authority to review and act upon major modifications,
Manag-
eras shallrestablish criteria d in the iforpminoraand. The ma or Cmodif a-
s
tions.
8. Any property owner, or his designated representa-
tive, seeking to modify an approved site plan review shall
notify the City Manager of the intent. The property owner
shall provide the City Manager, or his designee,with two
copies of the modified plans and a written description of
the proposed modifications. The City Manager, or his
designee, shall determine whether the proposed modifica-
tions are considered minor modifications or major modifica-
tions.
C. Minor modifications may be approved by the City
Manager, or his designee, as an administrative item and
shall not require a public hearing or notice. Evidence of
an approved minor modification shall be provided in writing
to the property owner and shall be filed with the original
site plan review approval. An action of the City Manager
to deny a request for minor modifications may be appealed
to the Planning Commission as provided for in Chapter
17.54.
D. Major modifications shall be considered a new pro-
ject. As.such, a new application for Site Plan Review
phall be rovided foruinethisnchapter. (Ord. 239d the application h§11(part)all be ,/1
P 1993).
L)KAF'1'
PLANNI/.., .0 DIG? TALK TO THE CITY!
C1ty a//ff JJ,•PP,
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
GRADING PROCESS GUIDE
WHAT IS CONSIDERED GRADING?
Any man-made alterations or changes to the "natural grade" or ground surface in its natural state is
considered "grading." The City of Rolling Hills Building Code requires that a grading permit be obtained
from the County when there is to be a cut or fill exceeding 3 feet in depth or 3 feet in height or covering
more than 2,000 square feet of the existing ground surface.
EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF SOIL IS PROHIBITED
The Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that all graded slopes be balanced on site and prohibits the
export or import of soil to or from any lot in the City unless approved by the City.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Should a grading permit be necessary, Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission is also required
along with soils and geology reports. The Site Plan shall show the amount of soil to be graded for any
purpose, including construction of basements and swimming pools along with grading quantity shrinkage
shall be considered as part of all calculations of cut and fill quantities. The Site Plan shall also show that
grading will be balanced on the proposed .construction site.
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
A preliminary grading plan, stamped by a licensed civil engineer, along with soils and geology reports
and engineering calculations are required by the Soils and Geology Departments of the County to either
meet safety standards imposed by the County and/or address soil conditions that have been identified
in the soils and geology report. These reports are the responsibility of the applicant and are required by
the County. These reports may result in a significant change to the grading plan that was considered
by the Planning Commission. Deviations may be resolved through staff approval of the revised
grading plan for a minor modification or a reapplication before the Planning Commission for a major
modification. THE CITY MUST BE INFORMED.
COUNTY GRADING PLAN APPROVAL
Do not grade until you have all City and County approvals and permits in hand. Check with Dig Alert
(1-800-422-4133 or 1-800-227-2600) to locate underground utilities before you do any grading. Keep
the City informed about your grading activities.
WORKING AT THE JOB SITE
Should there be deviations or corrections in the field to modify the grading, they may be resolved
through staff approval of an approved revised grading plan for a minor modification or a reapplication
before the Planning Commission for a major modification. IN ANY CASE, THE CITY MUST BE
INFORMED.
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-152.1
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
JOB SITE:
Date Owner/Applicant Date Contractor/Applicant's Agent / License No.
Date
Architect/License No. Date
Grading Engineer/License No.
PLANNING TO DIG? TALK TO THE CITY! PLANNING TO DIG? TALK TO THE CITY! PLANNING TO DIG?
ii
Printed on Recycled Pane,
City o/ A PP•n9 Jh//6
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
JOOY MURDOCK
rya
B. ALLEN LAY
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councirnembe►
FRANK E. HILL
Councdrnember
GOOFREY PERNELL. D.D.S.
Counal nember
April 16, 1996
Mr. George Shaw
Edward Carson Beall Associates
23727 Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90505
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90271
13101377-1521
FAX 1310) 377.7286
E•mait cityolrnpaot.own
SENT TO THE ATTACHED LIST.
Dear Mr. Shaw:
At the regular meeting of the Rolling Hills City Council held April 14, 1997, City
Councilmembers approved the attached staff report regarding the grading plan
confirmation process. As indicated in the report, it is staff's desire to have the most
accurate grading plans as possible presented to the Planning Commission.
We urge you to review this material .and let us know if you have any questions.
Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
$461441
Craig R. Nealis
City Manager
CRN:mlk
gradconproc.l t rs
cc:
City Council
Planning Commission
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
Lata Thakar, LA County
Rafael Bernal, LA County
Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager
®P• • • f 7 Ve• fl,...'r• '..7 P
•tr George Shaw
•dward Carston Beall
kssociateS
'.3727 Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90505
vtr. Tom Montague
romel Development, Inc.
1219 Charlemagne Ave.
Long Beach, C 90808
Mr. Ross N. Bolton
Bolton Engineering Corporation
2603 Coral Ridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Mr. Darryl Dalcin
Dalcin Cummins Associates
17625 Crenshaw Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90504
Mr. Doug McHattie
South Bay Engineering
304 Tejon Place
Palos Verdes Estates; CA 90274
Mr. George Sweeny
Architect
3 Malaga Cove
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
a % ftal.l.ho,um
and Carman Btvll
. _xlates
23727 Hawthrone Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90505
Mr. Anthony Inferrera
1967 Upland St.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Ms. Karina R. Bird
Bolton Engineering Corporation
2603 Coral Ridge Road
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Mr. Criss Gunderson
Criss Gunderson Architect
1840 S. Elena Ave., Ste. 203
Redondo Beach, CA 90040
Mr. Roger North
Robinson North Architects
26360 Plaza Del Amo, Ste. 200
Torrance, CA 90501
Mr. Bob Lamb
56 Eastfield Drive
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dut;h PhiIlir•
Bo\ 7s34
.._1,Jna Niguel, CA 92607
Mr. Thomas Blair
Blair and Associates
2785 Pacific Coast Highway
Torrance, CA 90505
Mr. David Breiholz
Breiholz Qazi Engineering, Inc.
2785 Pacific Coast Highway
Torrance, CA 90505
Mr. Richard Linda
Richard Linde & Associates
2200 Amapola Court, Ste. 200
Torrance, CA 90501
Mr. Lamar Robinson
Robinson North Architects
26360 Plaza Del Amo, Ste. 200
Torrance, CA 90501