The URL can be used to link to this page

2500 Planning - General Correspondence & MemosC;t o/// ,4hi/I INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 JEFF PIEPER Mayor BEA DIERINGER Mayor Pro Tem JAMES BLACK, M.D. Councilmember LEAH MIRSCH Councilmember PATRICK WILSON Councilmember March 30, 2015 Mr. Brad Chelf, Chairman Rolling Hills Planning Commission 59 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Chairma Zelf, v 4" NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 For the year ahead, I am pleased to inform you that Councilmember Leah Mirsch will be serving as the City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Mirsch will be available to answer questions you have on City Council matters or to address any concerns you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact Councilmember Mirsch as necessary; she can be reached through the City at 310-377-1521. The City Council appreciates the services the Planning Commission provides to the community of Rolling Hills and looks forward to continuing and strengthening our mutually beneficial and positive relationship. Our best for a successful year. Sincerely, eff Pieper Mayor JP:hi 03-30- I5Com m i ttee-Itrs. docx c: City Council Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Report on vacant lots and subdividable lots ATTACHEMENTS: Excerpts from the Housing Element and a map of vacant parcels DATE: January 16, 2015 REQUEST Commissioner Kirkpatrick requested information on the availability of vacant lots in the City and the potential for subdivision of vacant and developed lots. DISCUSSION Attached to this report are excerpts from the 2014 Housing Element and a map of vacant lots in the City. The information provided shows 16 buildable vacant lots in the City that could generate 16 additional units. However, the report does not address how many of these lots could be subdivided or how many of the developed lots in the City could be subdivided. The map of vacant lots also shows lots in the Flying Triangle of the City and deems those lots unbuildable. With the advance in geotechnical and grading methods technology and as can be seen from the Court Case in RPV, (where the court ruled to allow development of certain parcels in the geotechnically hazardous area of RPV), it may become possible in the future to develop some of those lots. Staff estimates that out of the vacant lots in the City, based on the zoning district and size of the lots, two lots could be further subdivided (not counting the application along Crest Rd. E. currently before the Planning Commission). In addition, with some creative shifting of lot lines with adjacent parcels (under the same ownership), it would be possible to subdivide two additional parcels. Another vacant parcel, although adequate in size for a subdivision in the RAS-2 zone, has a very narrow access to a fully dedicated street and an additional parcel would not meet the 150' width requirement. The four large vacant parcels along Storm Hill Lane could not be further subdivided due to geotechnical and flood hazard constraints. A covenant to that effect has been recorded against those parcels. It is difficult to estimate how many of the developed lots in the City could be subdivided. From the aerial maps available at City Hall one can see that many of the homes on the larger lots are located in the middle or somewhat in the middle of the lots. Unless the existing homes were demolished, it would be impossible to subdivide those lots and meet the required size and setbacks on the new lots. However, as stated in the Housing Element, much of the City's housing stock was built in the 1950's and 1960's and it is prime for redevelopment. The 1990 Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates that in 1990 there were 683 housing units (developed lots). Of those 58 lots, or 8.5% were less than one acre in size; 265 lots or 38.8% were 1-2 acres; 231 lots or 33.8% were 2-3 acres; 52 lots or 7.6% were 3-5 acres and 77 lots or 11.2% were 5 acres or larger. Since 1990 there were no subdivisions in the RAS-1 zone and 6 recorded subdivisions in the RAS-2 zone resulting in 9 additional parcels, most 2-3 acres in size, (except the 3 parcels on Storm Hill Lane and the 2 Poppy Trail parcels, which are larger but much of the land is constraint). Therefore, the percentage ratio of parcel sizes between 1990 and currently has not changed very much. Looking strictly at the size of the lots and the width of the lot frontage on a fully dedicated street (from the Zoning Map), but not taking into consideration any other of the required factors for a subdivision or environmental constraints, such as topography, canyons, geology, width of parcels- other than frontage on a street, and other subdivision requirements, staff estimates that if all of the older homes in the RAS-2 zone were demolished and vacant lots created, approximately 15 of the lots could be subdivided into two, 2+ acres lots. This does not include lots in the Flying Triangle or lots that were recently developed or went thought major remodel or addition. In the RAS-1 zone, staff estimates that 6 parcels could be subdivided given the criteria above. CONCLUSION In order to accurately determine the potential built -out state of the City, an extensive land use study, including review of geological and topographical features of each parcel would have to be conducted. This could be accomplished with a General Plan Land Use Element update. Additionally, should the Commission be concerned with the potential increase in density in the City, Commission members could discuss the possibility of introducing a Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Element amendment, to rezone certain contiguous areas of the City in the current RAS-2 zone to a lesser density (i.e. RAS-4, minimum lot size of 4 acres). Such proposal for amendment would require extensive research of existing conditions of the lots and justification for the proposal and be subject to public hearings and public examination, as is required by law. Should any member of the Planning Commission wish to discuss this topic in a public forum, he / she should bring it up under matters from the Planning Commission, and if agreed upon by the members, staff would agendize it for discussion at a future meeting. EXCERPTS FROM THE 2014 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS HOUSING ELEMENT: Housing Growth (p. 25) Rolling Hills has been largely built out for the last thirty years. The supply of buildable land has become increasingly constrained by fires, landslides and identification of biologically sensitive species. Since 1990, the City has gained a net of 10 units. Rolling Hills' housing supply has grown from a 1990 Census count of 674 units, to a 2000 Census count of 675 to a 2010 census count of 693 units. This represents an average growth rate of 2 percent per year. While the limited availability of land suitable for residential development has resulted in only nominal increases in the City's housing stock, additional residential development has been occurring through redevelopment of existing units. Much of the City's housing stock was built in the 1950s, and is typified by 3,000 to 4,000 square -foot ranch style homes. As in many communities with a strong market for residential development and limited available land, Rolling Hills' older housing stock is being replaced with much larger, expansive units averaging 6,000 to 9,000 square feet in size, according to City building permit records. This trend of residential recycling can be expected to continue and potentially increase as less vacant land is available for development. AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING (p. 46 and 47) Consistent with Government Code Sections 65583(a)(3) and 66683.2(h), to assess future residential development potential in Rolling Hills, an inventory of vacant parcels has been prepared and evaluated in terms of the actual capability of parcels to accommodate residential development. In addition, large parcels which are currently developed but which have the potential for further subdivision have also been evaluated. With the majority of the City's developable acreage already built out, many of the remaining vacant parcels are characterized by physical constraints, which preclude their development. These constraints are primarily related to severe topography and/or existing landslides. Figure 5 illustrates the vacant parcels in the City. However, about half of these parcels have been identified as inappropriate for residential or any other development because of geologic constraints. Twelve of the vacant parcels in the southern portion of the City are located in the Flying Triangle area, where new development is prohibited by Los Angeles County Building Code. Three of the vacant parcels, located in the western portion of the City, have extreme geological constraints and are developable with single family residence only. The buildable pad on these lots is very small and could not accommodate larger developments. All of these parcels are subject to CC&Rs. Aggregating the development potential on available vacant lots, there are 38 vacant sites in the City of an average size of one to two acres, with 16 of the sites having geological or environmental constraints that make development during this planning period unlikely. Consequently, there are currently I6 vacant parcels available for development. Some of those also have extreme slopes and only portion of the lots could potentially be developed. Table IS quantifies the number of dwelling units which could be accommodated on these parcels. Non-residential properties in Rolling Hills are limited to City Hall and a school district site that contains a school bus maintenance facility, continuation high school and Palos Verdes Transit parking facility. Both sites are fully developed as institutional uses. Neither of these properties are anticipated to be redeveloped within the time frame of this element. Other governmental owned properties are developed with recreational uses, and some are located on steeply sloping properties, most without adequate road access. Table 15 City of Rolling Hills Future Residential Development Potential MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INCREASE IN DWELLING UNITS Zone Total RA -S- I 4 RA -S-2 12 TOTAL 16 Source: City of Rolling Hills, August 2013. Vacant Serum la,a Cots:'auxs Fr Warm. NAV1E0, bnFn, t^N^^Ma ivvlwtPCerp, OE0830a lacy FAO. NrSNRIN{ Caoeex, TJ( IfearnnFl Ord-dro 9�Saw,EmJePo^: n: MET: EU Ore IWxO Pe -g1 erdtp4 W OrOI^ulAw Gsmsess. 50UTNERN CALIFORNIA Source: City of Rolling Hills, 2013 0^ 0.075 0.15 0.3 ASSOCIATION of 00Vl[IIM[NTS P:10ataMap_Guidel=RTP_2016Mxds1LULLAILU_Roflmg_Hills_VACANtmxd 1 Mies O October 1, 2013 Figure S. Vacant Land Inventory Map Page 46 C1t o1 Jh/h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 B. ALLEN LAY Mayor JEFF PIEPER Mayor Pro Tem JAMES BLACK, M.D. Councilmember BEA DIERINGER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember April 29, 2014 Mr. Brad Chelf, Chairman Rolling Hills Planning Commission 59 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Chairman Chem, For the year ahead, I am pleased to inform you that Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Pieper will be serving as the City Council liaison to the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Pieper will be available to answer questions you have on City Council matters or to address any concerns you may have. Please do not hesitate to contact Mayor Pro Tem Pieper as necessary; he can be reached through the City at 310-377-1521. The City Council appreciates the services the Planning Commission provides to the community of Rolling Hills and looks forward to continuing and strengthening our mutually beneficial and positive relationship. Our best for a successful year. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 3777288 Sincerely, B. Allen Lay Mayor BAL:hl 04-29- l4Committee-Jtrs. docx c: City Council Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Administrative approvals DATE: July 12, 2013 For your information, please find attached a list of projects approved administratively (over -the counter) in the past six months. This report will be also provided to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me or stop by the office. Page 1 of 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK JULY 10, 2013 Listed below are projects that were administratively reviewed and approved (over- the-counter) in the past six months. Included are also projects that were deemed minor modifications to projects previously approved by the Planning Commission. DATE APPROVED ADDRESS TYPE OF WORK COMMENTS 1/9/13 14 Williamsburg Resurface & widen drwy 1/9 44 Portuguese Bend New roof for residence under major remodel & addition 1/9 10 Possum Ridge 937 sq.ft. addition 1/12 ' 1 Meadowlark Shed and trash yard 1/16 - , , ., • 17 Georgeff Upgrade electric- underground utility lines 1/18 0 Chestnut Wind screen around pool/guard rail 1/28 8 Crest Rd. E. Move previously approved house several feet south Project approved by PC*; minor modification by staff -reported to PC 1/28 80 Saddleback Demo of house Asbestos/air quality report submitted 1/29 5 Quailridge S. Re -roof 2/4 38 Portuguese Bend Rd Renovate pool area; new patio & other hardscape, stairs to pool; grading - max 2,000 sq.ft. area, walls - max 3' 2/6 88 Saddleback Roof- Solar panels 2/22 15 Wideloop Resurface driveway 2/26 5 Buggy Whip 998 s.f. addition to house; trellis 2/26 33 Crest Rd. E. Remodel pool house & ridge line 2/28 5 Flying Mane Ln. 992 sq.ft. addition & major remodel. Less than 50% of exterior walls demolished. Owner withdrew appl. for new house approved by PC 2/28 0 Buggy Whip Entry remodel & 150 sq.ft. addition 3/4 12 Johns Canyon Rd Interior remodel, raise lv rm floor to match rest of house _ 3/6 0 Pine Tree Ln. Resurface drwy & motor court 3/6 20 Cinchring Replace deck (same footprint) 3/7 47 Eastfield Re -roof 3/10 1 Reata 195 sq.ft. addition Utility lines already underground 3/11 4 Eucalyptus Roof- Solar panels 3/21 _ ;. ..: 8 Crest Rd. E Modify shape of proposed house; same size PC direction to approve administratively 3/26 6 Williamsburg 650 sq.ft. pool and spa 3/27 5 Acacia Resurface driveway 4/3 20 Georgeff Re -roof & skylights 4/3 Vacant lot, Crest Rd.E Geological exploration 4/8 1 Wagon Ln Replace driveway 4/10 35 Chuckwagon Re -roof 4/11 3 Morgan Lane Roof- Solar panels; re - roof 4/25 46 Eastfield Re -roof 4/29 3 Acacia Ln Re -roof garage 4/30 17 Johns Canyon Rd Re -roof 5/8 5 Crest Rd. E. Roof -Solar panels 5/9 13 Caballeros Solar panels -roof 5/13 38 Crest Rd. E Solar panels, roof and ground mounted 5/16 5 El Concho Re -roof 5/28 0 Chestnut Pond and water cascade in back yard 5/29 6 Wagon Lane Air conditioning 5/30 26 Chuckwagon Shed 10'x16' 5/31 22 Eastfield Re -roof 6/12 26 Cinchiring Interior remodel 6/19 26 Cinchring Exterior wall demo; 28% of walls to be demo for new windows/doors No new sq.ft. 6/20 17 Caballeros Minor interior remodel 6/20 67 Saddleback Sky -lights 6/25 80 Saddleback Geological exploration 7/1 3 Lower Blackwater Roof -Solar Panels _ 7/1 20 Caballeros Renovate hardscape; patio, garden walls, max. 3', patio grading - max 1,700 s.f. 7/2 5 Crest Rd E. Re -roof around solar panels 7/2 29 Crest Rd. E Caissons behind exst. walkway & deck 7/2 9 Portuguese Bnd. 153 sq.ft. gazebo 7/8 24 Cinchring Rd. Interior residence demolition 7/8 10 Williamsburg Condenser & air conditioner 7/10 49 Eastfield 190 sq.ft. trellis * PC = Planning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appointment of a Planning Commissioner DATE: June 14, 2013 On Monday, June 10, 2013 the City Council appointed Michael Gray to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of Council Member Pieper, resulting from his election to the City Council. Michael Gray has been a resident of Rolling Hills since 1987 and resides at 2 Morgan Lane. Commissioner Gray will join you at the field trip on Tuesday morning. eat, el Rota" qcrid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 July 31, 2012 Dear Professional: In order to more effectively manage our time and, in an effort to continue providing our undivided attention to projects, the Rolling Hills Planning Department's new hours, effective August 3, 2012, will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Thursday from 8:00 am to 3:30 pm. The Planning Department can be contacted at 310.377.1521 or you may visit the office at 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Pre -arranged appointments are preferable. In addition, we would like to inform you of recently amended City's provisions and policies regarding zoning and development. See the attached summary. We hope that this information will be helpful to you and your clients. Your cooperation in implementing City's requirements and procedure's is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to visit our office or schedule an appointment should you wish to discuss these matters further. S. ► c :, ely, Y to Schwartz Planning Director YS 07/31/12 Letter to Architects & Contractors-ltr.doc cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager eat, oi Rottiof qitid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 SUMMARY OF RECENTLY AMENDED CITY'S PROVISIONS AND POLICIES REGARDING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • The City created OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (OZD-1) for the Middleridge Lane North and Chuckwagon/Chesterfield Roads neighborhoods. (Map is available at City Hall). Primary structure (residence) in the OZD-1 may be demolished in its entirety, and reconstructed within its existing footprint, including within any existing encroachments into front or side setbacks, providing the encroachment is not closer than 30' from the front roadway easement line and not closer than 10' from the side property line. Further, an addition to the residence to up to 30' from the front roadway easement line may be approved without requiring a Variance. • For properties in the RAS-1 zoning district of 1.25 acres in size or smaller (excluding roadway easements), a primary structure (residence) may be demolished in its entirety and reconstructed within its existing footprint, including within any existing encroachments into front or side setbacks; providing the encroachment is not closer than 30' from the front roadway easement line and not closer than 10' from the side property line. Any addition to the residence must comply with the requirements applicable to the rest of the community in the RAS-1 zone, (50' front setback and 20'side setback). • For the above two scenarios, a minimum of 60% of the front yard area shall be landscaped; and only one driveway approach is permitted. If a property has two or more driveway approaches (other than to a stable), one driveway approach would have to be closed off. • An over-the-counter approval may be granted by staff for projects that consist of no more than 999 square feet addition within three year period, which is measured from the time a final inspection/ occupancy permit were issued. Such addition must meet all City development standards, including structural and total coverage, grading, lot disturbance and provide a feasible set aside area fora stable, corral and access thereto. • Accessory structures, such as stable, recreation room and similar structures, of up to 200 square feet may be approved over-the-counter (administratively). No Conditional Use Permit is required. Such accessory structures must meet all City development standards, including structural and total coverage, grading, lot Page 1 of 2 07/31/12 Letter to Professionals disturbance and provide a feasible set aside area for a stable, corral and access thereto. • Additions to a residence of no more than 999 square feet where 50% or more of the existing residence, (exterior walls in lineal feet) is proposed to be demolished, may no longer be automatically approved over-the-counter. The applicant shall stake the addition, including the roof line and provide staff with address labels of property owners within 1,000 -foot radius of the project. Staff will notify the property owners within the 1,000 -foot radius and if two or more objections are received within a specified time period, then the project will be subject to Planning Commission review under the Site Plan Review process. If staff receives no objections or only one objection, staff could approve the project over- the-counter. • All submittals for major remodel and any addition shall include a detailed demolition plan. • Remedial or temporary grading not greater than 2,000 square feet in surface area, where the surface is returned to its pre -grading condition is not considered "disturbed". For example, an area behind a wall necessary for access for construction and which is later filled in and returned to its original condition. • An over-the-counter approval of any project is valid for one year. • Although maximum 2:1 steep slopes are still allowed, developers are encourage to create lesser slopes, even if it means that a Variance for exceeding the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot would be required. • The Planning Commission approved examples of projects, which could be considered "minor modification" to projects approved by the Planning Commission/City Council and which could be approved by staff when a project is in the plan check review process or under construction. Examples of "major modification" have also been approved. Major modifications continue to require Planning Commission review. • Certain "minor" projects may be approved administratively on properties that in the past received a "No Further Development without Planning Commission review and approval" condition. • Minimum of 50% of all construction and demolition material must be recycled and verification provided to staff. All haulers are required to obtain a C&D Permit from the City. The permit fee is $25 per job. • A flow chart of the planning review process for development applications is available at the public counter and on City's website. Page 2 of 2 Russell Barto, A.I.A. 3 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 David J. Boyd & Associates 24050 Madison Street Torrance, CA 90503 Roger North Robinson North Architects 2360 Plaza Del Amo, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90501 Jason Metoyer D Miles Group 1536 W. 25th Street #305 San Pedro, CA 90732 David Breiholz Breiholz Qazi Engineering, Inc. 1852 Lomita Blvd., Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Joseph Spierer, AIA 370 Crenshaw Blvd., Ste. E206 Torrance, CA 90503 Pritzkat & Johnson 304 Vista del Mar, suite D Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Julie Heinsheimer Blue Door Gardens 803 Deep Valley Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Dan Martinez Lucas Bros. Construction, Inc. 1071 W. 251st Street Harbor City, CA 90710 Tom Milostan, Architect 777 Silver Spur Road, Suite 118 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Jim Bartz Bartz Design & Construction 28820 King Arthur Court Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Criss Gunderson, Architect 2024 Via Pacheco Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Keith Palmer Bryant, Palmer, Soto, Inc. 2601 Airport Drive, Suite 310 Torrance, CA 90505 Gregory A. Keenan Keenan Development 25124 Narbonne Ave., Suite 206 Lomita, CA 90717 Gary Wynn Wynn Engineering 27315 Valley Center Road Valley Center, CA 92082 David Palacios D M P Construction Co. 2408 Steed Court Lomita, CA 90717 Debra Richie-Bray 222 Avenida Del Norte Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Bill Howe Bill Howe Construction PO Box 3369 Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 Jamshid Sarmast Platinum Construction 553 N. Pacific Coast Hwy, # B-334 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Edward Carson Beall & Associates 23727 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 • Anthony Inferrera, A.I.A. 1967 Upland Street Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 George Sweeny, Architect 3 Malaga Cove Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Ross Bolton & Dan Bolton Bolton Engineering Corporation 25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 201 Lomita, CA 90717 Doug Morris 4918 Camerino Street Lakewood, CA 90712 Chris Trettin Kovac Architects 2330 Pontius Ave., Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Rick Marshall West Construction 86 Rockinghorse Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 William Howe, Jr. C.W. Howe, Inc. 26 Hillcrest Meadows Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Luis De Morases Envirotechno Architecture & Design 6101 W. Centinela Ave. #160 Culver City, CA 90230 Loera Designs 118 S. Catalina Ave. Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Mr. Matthew Jones Peninsula Engineering Company 715 Silver Spur Road, Suite 206 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Mr. Kit Bagnell, District Engineer L. A. County Public Works Building and Safety Department 24320 S. Narbonne Avenue Lomita, CA 90717 Moule Polyzoides Architects Damon Herring 180 East California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91105 Mailing labels (5160) 07-31-12 mailing labels letter o ppoofessionals, new Planning Dept hours and summary of recently amended provisions and policies, Mr. Brad Dudley Powell Dudley Frith Architects 345 Third Street Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Mr. Steve Widmayer, P.E. Willdan 13191 Crossroads Pkwy North, # 405 Industry, CA 91746-3497 Kathryn Bishop RHCA 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Jeff Dooley 8 Montana Del Lago Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Kristen Raig, Manager RHCA 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Mr. Bizhan Khaleeli, Architect B.K.A. 27823 S. Montereina Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 eiret Re1€41 gad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SENT TO THE ATTACHED LIST: July 31, 2012 Dear Professional: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 In order to more effectively manage our time and, in an effort to continue providing our undivided attention to projects, the Rolling Hills Planning Department's new hours, effective August 3, 2012, will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Thursday from 8:00 am to 3:30 pm. The Planning Department can be contacted at 310.377.1521 or you may visit the office at 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Pre -arranged appointments are preferable. In addition, we would like to inform you of recently amended City's provisions and policies regarding zoning and development. See the attached summary. We hope that this information will be helpful to you and your clients. Your cooperation in implementing City's requirements and procedures is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to visit our office or schedule an appointment should you wish to discuss these matters further. S. r c ely, Y to Schwartz Planning Director YS 07/31/12 Letter to Architects & Contractors-ltr.doc cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager l/l3- b uLe 6J -e) rn eoLdveArslczAJ4.:6L6 1,01-, r1,1 2 0 off_ 1,4 0� �'� -�-�/ di6-)4 7)-ub2-6e 4,3 vAe (/)-24-(7 4-e ((AA- zin r Gen-` r Gn,.k B"-z.ol2.d_oc)( 6 (A -0Q LN-v _ 0.th,t,,A9L. clors c--( . doc. ( July 31, 2012 Dear Professional: In order to more effectively manage our time and, in an effort to continue providing our undivided attention to projects, the Rolling Hills Planning Department's new hours, effective August 3, 2012, will be Monday through Thursday from 8am to 5pm. The Planning Department can be contacted at 310.377.1521 or you may visit the office at 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Pre -arranged appointments are preferable. In addition, we would like to inform you of recently amended City's provisions and policies regarding zoning and development. See the attached summary. We hope that this information will be helpful to you and your clients. Your cooperation in implementing City's requirements and procedures is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to visit our office or schedule an appointment should you wish to discuss these matters further. Sincerely Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager 0 7) SUMMARY OF RECENTLY AMENDED CITY'S PROVISIONS AND POLICIES REGARDING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • The City created OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (OZD-1) for the Middleridge Lane North and Chuckwagon/Chesterfield Roads neighborhoods. (Map is available at City Hall). Primary structure (residence) in the OZD-1 may be demolished in its entirety, and reconstructed within its existing footprint, including within any existing encroachments into front or side setbacks, providing the encroachment is not closer than 30' from the front roadway easement line and not closer than 10' from the side property line. Further, an addition to the residence to up to 30' from the front roadway easement line may be approved without requiring a Variance. • For properties in the RAS-1 zoning district of 1.25 acres in size or smaller (excluding roadway easements), a primary structure (residence) may be demolished in its entirety and reconstructed within its existing footprint, including within any existing encroachments into front or side setbacks; providing the encroachment is not closer than 30' from the front roadway easement line and not closer than 10' from the side property line. Any addition to the residence must comply with the requirements applicable to the rest of the community in the RAS-1 zone, (50' front setback and 20'side setback). • For the above two scenarios, a minimum of 60% of the front yard area shall be landscaped. • For the above two scenarios, only one driveway approach is permitted. If a property has two or more driveway approaches (other than to a stable), one driveway approach would have to be closed off. • An over-the-counter approval may be granted by staff for projects that consist of no more than 999 square feet addition within three year period, which is measured from the time a final inspection/ occupancy permit were issued. Such addition must meet all City development standards, including structural and total coverage, grading, lot disturbance and provide a feasible set aside area for a stable, corral and access thereto. • Accessory structures, such as stable, recreation room and similar structures, of up to 200 square feet may be approved over-the-counter (administratively). No Conditional Use Permit is required. Such accessory structures must meet all City development standards, including structural and total coverage, grading, lot disturbance and provide a feasible set aside area for a stable, corral and access thereto. • Additions to a residence of no more than 999 square feet where 50% or more of the existing residence, (exterior walls in lineal feet) is proposed to be demolished, may no longer be automatically approved over-the- counter. The applicant shall stake the addition, including the roof line and provide staff with address labels of property owners within 1,000 -foot radius of the project. Staff will notify the property owners within the 1,000 -foot radius and if two or more objections are received within a specified time period, then the project will be subject to Planning Commission review under the Site Plan Review process. If staff receives no objections or only one objection, staff could approve the project over- the-counter. • All submittals for major remodel and any addition shall include a detailed demolition plan. • Remedial or temporary grading not greater than 2,000 square feet in surface area, where the surface is returned to its pre -grading condition is not considered "disturbed". For example, an area behind a wall necessary for access for construction and which is later filled in and returned to its original condition. • An over-the-counter approval of any project s valid for one year. • Although maximum 2:1 steep slopes are still allowed, developers are encourage to create lesser slopes, even if it means that a Variance for exceeding the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot would be required. • The Planning Commission approved examples of projects, which could be considered "minor modification" to projects approved by the Planning Commission/City Council and which could be approved by staff when a project is in the plan check review process or under construction. Examples of "major modification" have also been approved. Major modifications continue to require Planning Commission review. • Certain "minor" projects may be approved administratively on properties that in the past received a "No Further Development without Planning Commission review and approval" condition. • Minimum of 50% of all construction and demolition material must be recycled and verification provided to staff. All haulers are required to obtain a C&D Permit from the City. The permit fee is $25 per job. • A flow chart of the planning review process for development applications is available at the public counter and on City's website. Ross Bolton Dan Bolton Bolton Engineering Corporation 25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 201 Lomita, CA 90717 David Breiholz Breiholz Qazi Engineering, Inc. 1852 Lomita Blvd., Suite 210 Lomita, CA 90717 Gary Wynn Wynn Engineering 27315 Valley Center Road Valley Center, CA 92082 Doug Morris 4918 Camerino Street Lakewood, CA 90712 Pls add; � Joseph pierer, Architect (5 Flying Mane Lane) Dave Palacio (contractor for 0 Pine Tree Ln) V/ Kovac Architecture 2330 Pontius Ave, Suite 202 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Pritzkat & Johnson 304 Vista del Mar, suite D Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Jefc Pool el & .e' Jt»es ,t9 'r. CAN YOU THINK OF ANYONE ELSE THAT"S ARCHITECT OR AGENT FOR APPLICANTS?? C V I e Std AS ✓ �Kai. )(A k gi RELATIVELY NEW??? 14 1- frA,Gu-c Zrer- ' Sol Ftf. , Rick Marshall West Construction 86 Rockinghorse Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tom Milostan, Architect 777 Silver Spur Road, Suite 118 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Debra Richie-Bray 222 Avenida Del Norte Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Dan Martinez Lucas Bros. Construction, Inc. 1071 W. 251st Street Harbor City, CA 90710 Jamshid Sarmast Platinum Construction 553 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite B-334 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Luis De Morases Envirotechno Architecture & Design 6101 W. Centinela Ave. #160 Culver City, CA 90230 William Howe, Jr. C.W. Howe, Inc. 26 Hillcrest Meadows Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Bill Howe Bill Howe Construction 28043\Hwthb -Blvd-. P Q. g. --9x Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Julie Heinsheimer Blue Door Gardens 803 Deep Valley Drive Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Russell Barto, A.I.A. 3 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Jim Bartz Bartz Design & Construction Development 28820 King Arthur Court Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Edward Carson Beall & Associates 23727 Hawthorne Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 David J. Boyd & Associates 24050 Madison Street Torrance, CA 90503 Criss Gunderson, Architect 2024 Via Pacheco Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Anthony Inferrera, A.I.A. 1967 Upland Street Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Roger North Robinson North Architects 2360 Plaza Del Amo, Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90501 Keith Palmer Bryant, Palmer, Soto, Inc. 2601 Airport Drive, Suite 310 Torrance, CA 90505 George Sweeny, Architect 3 Malaga Cove Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Jason Metoyer D Miles Group 1536 W. 25th Street #305 San Pedro, CA 90732 Gregory A. Keenan Keenan Development & Construction 25124 Narbonne Ave., Suite 206 Lomita, CA 90717 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Administrative approvals; Current Code Enforcement Cases DATE: May 15, 2011 For your information, please find attached a list of projects approved administratively (over -the counter) since January 2011 and a report on current code enforcement cases. This report was also provided to the City Council. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me or stop by the office. Page 1 of 1 ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED PROJECTS Listed below are projects that were administratively reviewed and approved since the last report. Additional reports will follow. Please call me if you have any questions. DATE ADDRESS SCOPE OF WORK 1/4/11 7 Buggy Whip Solar Panels (roof) 1/20 48 Eastfield Interior remodel & doors, windows 1/24 4 Possum Ridge Re -roof 1/26 33 Eastfield Driveway repair/resurface 1/27 3 Johns Canton Rd. Replace/reroute gas line 1/27 7 Buggy Whip Re -roof 1/28 73 Crest Road E. Interior remodel/skylights 2/2 18 Caballeros Solar panels (roof) 2/2 46 Eastfield 995.s.f. addition and basement 2/7 46 Eastfield Re -do roof on cabana; remove deck on roof & construct pitched roof (per RHCA req) 2/21 13 Outrider Underground utility lines 3/7 12 Georgeff Solar panels (roof) 3/8 4 Quailridge N. Repair pool 3/14 16 Portuguese Bend Rd Re -roof 3/16 3 Lower Blackwater 146 s.f. addition 3/17 11 Wagon Lane Relocate driveway; parking pad —no grading; 56 s.f. addition & interior remodel 3/21 7 Lower Blackwater Re -do deck & other hardscape 3/21 6 Middleridge N. Interior remodel 3/24 66 Eastfield Interior remodel 3/27 8 Caballeros Re -roof 3/29 24 Caballeros 3 garden walls in the rear (terraced grading -less than 3' each and less than 2,000 sq.ft. surface area) 4/4 10 Johns Canyon Relocate drwy 4/5 24 Caballeros Underground utility lines 4/7 74 Eastfield Outdoor hardscape; fire pit, trellis; bbq, re -do deck 4/11 15 Wideloop 961 s.f.addition and basement 4/13 15 Upper Blackwater Resurface deck and outdoor hardscape 4/27 9 Chuckwagon Clear area in rear and surface grade for walking path on rear slope (scope of work is under the threshold of requiring PC review) 4/29 35 Crest Road E. Patio trellis & trellis over drwy 5/5 22 Georgeff Solar panels (roof) 5/6 12 Saddleback Solar Panels (roof) op, Code Enforcement Active Case Log May 2011 Address Owner Issue Status 38 Saddleback McGrath Barn conversion w/o approval On hold- subject to revised stable ordinance 7 Quail Ridge So. Shoemaker Barn conversion w/o approval On hold - subject to revised stable ordinance 3 Pine Tree Podell , Less than 450 sq ft stable (in setback) without approval Plans approved for 450 s.f. stable not in setback. Owner to remove illegal structure from setback before final approval is granted for house remodel/addition. 76 Eastfield George/Culver Barn conversion without approval PC approved, building permit issued and working to convert a portion of structure back to stable; permit still open. 46 Eastfield Fogel Roof conversion to deck on pool house w/o approval or permits Submitted plans to City. Awaiting revised plan for roof; plans in plan check at LA County 7 Caballeros Kwon Trellis, cascade and pond w/out approvals Variance approved PC Reso 2010-25, to move improvements. Must comply by 10/18/12 (exp date of Reso.) 19 Southfield Heitzler Substandard barnconstruction w/out approval On hold- subject to revised stable ordinance 56 Eastfield Coser Outdoor fireplace w/o bldg permit Permit issued - contractor needs to call LACO for final inspection 40 Eastfield Tonsich Rear slope disturbance —building permit may be required To be evaluated with grading for new home construction 2 Pheasant Askari . Illegal improvements to existing stable PC approved pending adoption of Reso. & CC review. 2 Appaloosa Black Grading and drainage work without approval Site Plan Review & Variance for grading & drainage improvements 2/28/11 CC 1 , PUBLIC/Yolanta/Code Enforcement/Reports/Active Code Enforcement Active Case Log May 2011 Address Owner Issue Status tentatively approved but will not formally adopt Res until all other permit agencies (F&G, RHCA) have issued permits. .3 Packsaddle W. Aziza Mendoza ' 1) bright lighting on garage and 2) lack of screening on sports court Additional information requested from complainant, none submitted. No further complaint at this time. 24 Caballeros Jenkins Work without permits — small addition and rear walls, driveway lighting not to code. Addition: obtained permits, final inspection pending; Terraced walls: RHCA approved max 36 -inches tall, staff reviewed plans — over the counter approval; Lighting: owner disconnected lights 5 Buggy Whip Nguyen Rebuilding wooden wall without permit. Wall over 5'; req. variance Applicant submitted several options to include stable and guest hs. construction. Denied by staff -2 story appearance. Re- submitted for retaining wall/stable/guest house. Conceptually approved by RHCA Arch. Comm. Engineer to work with City. 92 Saddleback Gianconi Non-compliance with Condition of approval for tennis court fence _ Letters sent: owner needs to obtain ATF building permit for fence where exceeding 6 ft in hgt. - all other conditions met. 30 Portuguese Bend Rd Bozoumis . Excessive outdoor lighting Letter sent. Owner called stating that will partially comply. Received another complaint and called owner. Owner hired an attorney. 2nd ltr. sent. 1 Acacia Lane Lieb Shed constructed in setback. Req. bldg permit due to larger than 120 sq.ft. Visited site w/property owner. Will relocate or ask for Variance. May reduce size. 2 PUBLIC/Yolanta/Code Enforcement/Reports/Active MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: List of projects and required approval DATE: June 17, 2011 In an attempt to continue to inform and educate the residents and contractors, staff developed a list of most common projects conducted by residents and the approval course for each. The list is published on the City's web site and is available at the public counter at City Hall. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me or stop by the office. Page 1 of 1 eery 4 Reetiof INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS REVIEW AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Prior to commencing any work on your property, please contact the City of Rolling Hills for information on city requirements. The list below represents only a sample of projects and should be used as a guide in advance of contacting the City and before commencing the project. CONTACT INFORMATION: ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WILLDAN ENGINEERING ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 310 377-1521 310 534-3760 562 908-6200 310 544-6222 Please note that a separate review and approval may be required by the RHCA PROJECTS NO CITY REVIEW OR PERMIT REQUIRED STAFF - OVER THE COUNTER REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BUILDING DEPT. REVIEW & PERMIT REQUIRED Tree trimming on private property X Clearing and grubbing of property (no grading) X Re -landscaping (plants only) X Pathways (no grading) X Sprinkler repair X Drainage devices (pipes, swales, culverts, dissipaters - no grading) X X Repair deck/patio; change out pavement on patio, deck, drwy & walkway, on grade stairs X Driveways- new, widened or relocated * X Walkways, drwys more than 30" above grade X X Prepared 6/11 1 YS on Server: General: Project approval agenciesREV.docx PROJECTS NO CITY REVIEW OR PERMIT REQUIRED STAFF - OVER THE COUNTER REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BUILDING DEPT. REVIEW & PERMIT REQUIRED Deck -12" or more above natural grade X X House painting, new floors, change out cabinets, sinks, showers -no new plumbing X Interior/exterior remodel, windows, doors, entryways, porches X X Electrical, plumbing -new. New or change out mechanical -water heater/air conditioner/compressor ' X X Pond, water feature, fountain (no plumbing) X Pond, water feature, fountain- w/plumbing X X Tree house (max. 64 sf; 8' high) X Tree house -larger than above X X Playground eqp. & playground fort(max. 120 sf.; 15' high) X Fort bigger than above X Shed, playhouse up to 120 sf & up to 12' high X Detached accessory enclosed structure over 120 sf. (i.e. storage, cabana, etc.) • X X BBQ, outdoor kitchen, trellis, fire pit, fire place, gazebo, spa, pool -up to 800 sf X X Pool > 800 sf. X X Flagpoles X Flagpoles (more than 15' high) X X Stable, up to 200 sf; run-in shed; corral up to 550 sf. X X Stable, more than 200 sf; corral over 550 sf X X Prepared 6/11 2 YS on Server: General: Project approval agencies.docx PROJECTS NO CITY REVIEW OR PERMIT REQUIRED STAFF - OVER THE COUNTER REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BUILDING DEPT. REVIEW & PERMIT REQUIRED X Animal shelter, aviary & similar up to 200 sf X Animal shelter, aviary & similar more than 200 sf X X Rubble wall, less than 3' X Retaining wall up to 3' X X Retaining wall, more than 3' X X Satellite & radio antennas X X Solar panels X X Outdoor lighting X X Grading (< 3' cut/fill and < 2,000 sf. surface area) X X Grading more than above X X Geological exploration -no grading X Geological exploration -with grading (i.e. access path) X X Caissons X X Import/export of dirt -erosion control (up to 500 c.y. total over years) X Import/export of dirt -erosion control (more than 500 c.y. total over years) X X Import/export of dirt for construction purposes- up to 500 c.y. X • Import/export of dirt for construction purposes- more than 500 c.y. X X Sports court (any size) X X Sports court fence X X Three -rail fence; trellis over drwy X X Fence, other than three -rail, 6'or more X X Fence, other than three -rail, less than 6' X Prepared 6/11 3 YS on Server: General: Project approval agencies.docx PROJECTS NO CITY REVIEW OR PERMIT REQUIRED STAFF - OVER THE COUNTER REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW BUILDING DEPT. REVIEW & PERMIT REQUIRED New residence, addition more than 999 sf. X X Addition up to 999 sf. or 25% of the size of the residence, whichever is greater X X Breezeway, entryways, porte- cochere, covered porches X X * Traffic Commission Review required Prepared 6/11 4 YS on Server: General: Project approval agencies.docx • Gifts, Part II. Life in a Fishbowl: Avoiding Disaster 411 5Ivolt 9 C his series of "Everyday Ethics" columns is dedicated to providing an easy -to -understand explanation - of the law governing public officials' acceptance of gifts. Five practical questions (below) provide a framework for thinking about gift issues and a step-by-step approach for applying the rules to real -life gift situations. The February "Everyday Ethics" column (online at www.westerncity.com) discussed the ethical principles underlying the gift rules, prohibited actions and disclosure require- ments with respect to gifts and the wide variety of gestures that qualify as gifts. It also addressed the options available to a public official who receives a gift that he or she would rather not disclose or that would exceed the annual $420 gift limit (see question 5 in "Key Gift -Related Questions for Local Officials to Ask" at right). This column follows with a more detailed discussion of the first three of the five practi- cal questions introduced in the February column. The remaining articles in this series will address question 4, the specific rules applicable to particular kinds of gifts. QUESTION 1: What's the Value of What I Received? Promoting fair and merit -based decisions is a key goal of ethics laws. Another goal is to avoid the appearance that public servants are receiving special perks as a result of their status. As a general matter: 1) The public has a right to know when public officials receive gestures with a value of more than a certain amount; 2) Public officials may not receive gestures with a value of more than a certain amount; and 3) Gifts should not influence the decision -making process or appear to be influencing the decision -making process. continued Prizes won in ra Key Gift -Related Questions for Local Officials to Ask 1. What's the value of what I received? 2. Who gave me what I received? 3. Did I do something in exchange for what I received? 4. What kind of gift is it? (And do special rules apply as a result?) 5. Which of the permitted courses of action do I want to take with respect to the gift? les and drawings are generally considered gifts. This column is a service of the Institute for Local Government (ILG), whose mission is to promote good government at the local level. For more information and to access ILG's resources on public service ethics, visit www.ca-ilg.org/trust. ILG thanks University of California, Hastings College of the Law 1066 Foundation Bridge Fellow Jessica Ryan and Institute volunteer and retired City Attorney Michael Martello for their assistance with this article. www.westerncity.com Western City, April 2011 11 Life in a Fishbowl: Avoiding Disaster, continued If you serve on the board or vo nteer for a nonprofit organization, you must classify gestures such as travel expenses and food as either income or gifts for 'reporting purposes. Now Open in San Diego LCW LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE • litigation • flsa • public safety • employee relations • management training Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has been the leader in providing the highest quality representation and practical solutions for California's cities in all aspects of employment law and labor relations. Los Angeles 310.981.2000 1 San Francisco 415.512.3000 Fresno 559.256.7800 1 San Diego 619.400.4955 Icwlegal.com 1 flsaaudit.com CI!LE AIU'I'INc 30 YEARS Public officials must consequently be alert to the value of what they receive from others: 1. Gifts worth $50 or more must be reported on your Statement of Economic Interests. For purposes of this rule, gifts from a single source are combined. This means the official must report what he or she received when the total value of a series of ges- tures from a single gift -giver reaches $50 or more. This requires keeping a running tally of smaller gifts in case the total value of gestures from one source adds up to $50 or more over the course of a year. 2. The annual gift limit is $420 from a single source per calendar year. As a general rule, a public official may not accept a gesture that's worth $420 or more. Similarly, a public official may not accept a series of gestures chat total $420 or more from the same gift -giver over the course of a calendar year. 3. Receiving a gift may also keep a public official from participating in the decision -making process. If you arc a public official and you accept gestures with a value of $420 or more from a single gift -giver in the 12 months preceding an official deci- sion affecting that person, you may have to disqualify yourself from partici- pating in that decision -making process. How do you determine the value of a gift for reporting purposes? The general rule is that you must report the gift's fair market value. For example, if someone buys you dinner, you should report your portion of the tab (which may include the amount spent on your spouse, partner or guest, parking and tip, etc.). Some other rules related to valuing gifts include the following: • What the gift -giver paid is not neces- sarily the value. If it would cost you more to pay for the gesture, that is the value you must report, even if the gift - giver paid less. 12 League of California Cities www.cacities.org • If the item is not sold on the open market, reporting a good -faith esti- mate of its value based on the price of comparable items is acceptable. If you cannot determine the fair market value because the gift is unique or unusual, its value is the cost to the gift - giver if known or a good -faith estimate of char rn¢r if unknown. If the gesture fluctuates in cost or value, note that the value is pegged to the date of receipt. Sec "Additional Hazards: Special Valua- tion Rules for Certain Kinds of Gifts" au right for special rules !elated to valuing particular types of gifts. QUESTION 2: Who Gave Me What 1 Received? The issue of who is doing nice things for a public official is important for several reasons. • Single Source. Gift reporting require- ments and limits are tied to gestures from a single source. You must identify the source to correctly report the ges- ture and stay within the limit. • Intermediaries. Sometimes a gesture occurs through a middle person. This is the concept of an "intermediary." An official must report both the inter- mediary and the true source on his or her Statement of Economic Interests. For more detail on the rules related to intermediaries, visit www.ca-ilg.org/ gi ftso u rces. • Gifts From Multiple Sources. When multiple people pitch in for a gift valued at $50 or more, you may report the identity of the gift -givers in general terms, such as "co-workers," unless someone gave $50 or more. Contribu- tors of $50 or more must be indi- vidually named on your Statement of Economic Interests. • Identity of Gift -Giver. Gestures received from certain sources may be subject to special rules. For example, continued Adc!Vcznal Hazards: SpecQai Valuation Rules for Certain Kinds of Gifts Private Air Transportation. For charter or private air transportation, the base value is what you would have to pay to charter the kind of flight in ques- tion. The reportable share is not determined by dividing the base amount by the number of passengers on the flight, but rather by dividing the base amount by the number of qualifying public officials on the flight. Meals, refreshments or other benefits received while traveling on the flight must be reported as extra value received unless such benefits would have been included in the base Charter fare. Fundraisers. The general rule for an admission ticket is that you must report the face value of the ticket, but there are exceptions. For example, reporting tickets to nonprofit and political fundraisers is subject to a complicated valu- ation rule. • A public official need not report receipt of a single free ticket to a political fundraiser held in California from the candidate or committee holding the fundraiser as long as the official personally uses the ticket. • A single fundraiser ticket provided by a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit for the official's personal use is also exempt from reporting provided the nondeductible portion of the ticket does not exceed the gift limit. The Fair Political Practices Commission regulations contain additional nu- ances related to when and how these exceptions apply (for more information see www.ca-ilg.org/fundraisers). As question 4 (What kind of gift is it, and do special rules apply as a result?) suggests, special rules apply to particular kinds of gifts, including informa- tional materials, campaign contributions, wedding gifts, home hospitality, plaques, bequests and inheritances. The June "Everyday Ethics" column will analyze those rules. v voy.westerncity.com Western City, April 2011 13 Life in a Fishbowl: Avoiding Disaster, continued gifts from immediate family (as defined • in the regulations) are not subject to re- porting and limits. Gestures an official receives from his or her public agency are subject to special rules (see www. ca-ilg.org/agencygifts for more infor- mation). Finally, under some circum- stances, favors done by neighbors may not be reportable as gifts. Of course, accepting gestures from those who have business pending before the agency involves additional legal and ethi- cal issues. If someone has business pend- ing before the agency, the risks of the public perceiving that the gift influenced a decision (or was a reward for a favor- able decision) are especially great. That is one of the reasons the rules require public Skr • j khi may \;-':',67,71:'4 officials officials to step aside from the decision - making process if they have received gifts in excess of $420 in the 12 months preceding the decision. To avoid any perception of influence or reward, many officials decline such gestures altogether. A broader issue is the public's possible perception that those who do nice things for local officials are in essence buying access to a local official — and that the local official is allowing them to do so. The public's concern' is that either the conversations that occur or the personal relationships that might develop may influence a public official in a way that people who lack such access cannot. Some officials are sufficiently troubled by An ffi.cial must report what he or she received when the total value of a series of gestures from a single gift -giver reaches $50 or more. Seek Professional Advice Although the Institute for Local Government endeavors to help local officials understand laws that apply to public service, its informational materials are not legal advice. In addition, attorneys can and do disagree on the best interpretation of the complex rules relating to public service ethics. Officials are encouraged to consult an attorney or the Fair Political Practices Commis- sion for advice on specific situations. the possibility of such a public perception that they decline such gestures and simply have a "no gifts" policy. QUESTION 3: Did I Do Something in Exchange for What I Received? The core concept underlying the notion of a gift is that it is something someone gives another for nothing in return. Consequently, if you pay for what you received or otherwise exchange goods or provide services of equal or greater value for it, it does not fit within the definition of a gift. Here are the questions to ask yourself to determine whether or not you are in gift territory. Did I Pay Money or Exchange a Tan- gible Item of Equal or Greater Value for What I Received? • Payment Made. If you paid cash, wrote a check or used your credit card to pay the full monetary value of what you received within 30 days of receipt, you need not report it as a gift nor count 14 League of California Cities www.cacities.org • 11111;4' it toward the gift limit. Alternatively, officials who feel comfortable disclos- ing gifts have the option of reimbursing the gift -giver for a portion of the value of one or more gifts to avoid exceeding the $420 gift limit. Documenting the payment with a canceled check, credit card receipt or other evidence is a good practice. Keep in mind that the check must be cashed by the recipient — it is the official's burden to prove the donor both received and accepted the reimbursement payment. • Gift Exchanges. If you acquired what you received through exchanging gifts for an occasion such as a birthday or holiday, it is not subject to reporting requirements or the gift limit if the gifts are approximately equal in value. Gifts continued Promotingfair and merit --based decisions is a key goal of ethics laws. Another goal is avoiding the appearance that public servants are receiving special perks as a result of their status. The Nation's Top -Ranked Public Finance Firm Building on a ioo-year history in public finance which includes the financing of such iconic projects as the Golden Gate Bridge and Carnegie Hall, Orrick's public finance lawyers have handled thousands of transactions of every type, including: Health Care, Public Power, Higher Education, School Finance, Housing, Securitizations, Indian Tribal Finance, Swaps and other Hedges, Infrastructure, Transportation, Nonprofit Corporations, Water and Wastewater, Pension Bonds, OPEB Bonds and Public Private Partnerships. Orrick also is a leader in helping municipal market participants with post -issuance compliance and enforcement issues, such as Continuing Disclosure, SEC Investigations, Rebate, Defaults/Workouts, IRS Audits and Bankruptcies. For more information about our public finance practice, please contact publicfinance@orrick.com. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP LOS ANGELES NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY PORTLAND SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SILICON VALLEY WASHINGTON DC www.westerncity.com Western City, April 2011 1 5 Life in a Fishbowl: Avoiding Disaster, continued acquired through participation in an employee gift exchange are also not sub- ject to the rules, if the gifts exchanged are provided by agency employees and are of approximately equal value. • Barter Transactions. If you acquired what you received through a barter transaction — where you exchanged an item you owned or provided non -gov- ernmental services that were demon- strably worth the same or more — the gesture you received is not a gift subject Your city's Best resource for legal solutions California's premier full -service public law firm has one of the state's most extensive municipal law practices. Labor Negotiations & Litigation Employee Discipline & Termination Employee Benefits Employee Discrimination & Sexual Harassment Wage & Hour Law BEST BEST & KRIEGER= ArroRNIxs AT LAW Offices throughout California I Please visit www.bbklaw.com to reporting requirements or the gift limit. If you received more value than you gave, that "excess value" may be a gift to you. Documenting the transac- tion and values associated with it is a good idea. Did I Provide Services in Exchange for What I Received? • Employment -Related Gestures. If what you received was part of an em- ployment relationship unrelated to your service as a public official, the value of the gesture may be counted instead as income from your employer and disclosed pursuant to those rules. • Business Gestures. If what you re- ceived was in exchange for goods or ser- vices you provided as part of a business you operate, the gesture may instead be counted as income and disclosed pursu- ant to those rules. • Volunteer/Nonprofit Activities. If you serve on the board or volunteer for a nonprofit organization, you must classify benefits such as travel expenses and food as either income or gifts for reporting purposes. In order for the benefits to qualify as income, you must be able to demonstrate that you pro- vided services of equal or greater value Looking for Footnotes? A fully footnoted version of this article is available online at www.westerncity.com. 16 League of California Cities www.cacities.org A broader issue is the public's possible perception that those who do dice things for local officials are in essence buying access to a local official. to the nonprofit. If you did not provide such services, the benefits should be reported as gifts and may be subject to the $420 gift limit. • Presentations, Event Attendance and Articles Written. If your services involved giving a speech or participat- ing in a panel or seminar, you may accept free admission, refreshments and non -cash benefits at the event without reporting those benefits as a gift or counting them toward the limit (note that there is some indication this excep- tion may be eliminated soon). How- ever, the honoraria prohibition forbids you from accepting compensation for providing those services, including for giving a speech, writing an article or attending a public or private conference or other event. Certain exceptions exist for presentations and articles in connec- tion with a business or an employment relationship unrelated to your public service. For more information, visit the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) website page on honoraria at www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=226. • Other Ceremonial Functions. If you received a ticket from either your agency or an outside source for admis- sion to an event at which you per- formed a ceremonial function on behalf of the agency, your use of the ticker must be reported on FPPC Form 802. Your agency must post Form 802 on its website. The form contains information on the event, the value of the ticket, the source of the ticket and which official received the ticket. Otherwise, the value continued on page 26 t2rrui.was4eirecity.eom More Resources Online For more information and links to related resources, read this article online at www.westerncity.com. Life in a Fishbowl: Avoiding Disaster, continued from page 17 If you pay for what you received or otherwise exchange goods or provide services of equal or greater value for it, it does not fit within the definition of a kft. JOB OPPO RTUN ITI E S DIRECTOR OF FINANCE City of South El Monte (Salary: $8,000/mo. - $9,724/mo.) The Director of Finance will serve under the direction of the City Manager to coordinate the activities of the Finance Department; implement and establish policies and procedures related to finance, data processing, business licensing, central purchasing, grant administration; develop and prepare the City's and Business Improvement District's annual budgets and perform related duties as required. The ideal candidate will maintain any combination of education and/or experience that provides the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary; which may include (5) years of progressively responsible municipal accounting experience, including at least two years of supervisory experience at the mid - management level; a Bachelor's Degree in public or business administration, accounting, or closely related field. A Master's Degree or Certified Public Accountant License (CPA) and bilingual skills are desirable. APPLY BY: 5:30pm, Tuesday, May 31, 2011. For additional information, please contact Human Resources at (626) 579-6540 or refer to the web site: www.ci.south-el-monte.ca.us. City Clerk Annual Salary S91,948 - S113,908 DOQp1us benefits and a 9/80 work schedule Situated in southeast Los Angeles County about 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean, the charming City of Downey has a population of 113,000 and covers an area of 12.7 square miles. The ideal candidate will have experience in a City Clerk operation within a municipal agency leading initiatives such as enhanced records management practices and procedures through the use of technology, assessment of workflow processes, and website design for the availability of records to enhance customer service. The successful candidate will be politically astute, collaborative, professional, ethical, and committed to service. The position requires five years of progressively responsible experience, preferably in a City Clerk's Office. A Bachelor's degree in Public Administration or a related field is preferred. Certified Municipal Clerk designation, administrative and supervisory experience are highly desired. Apply online by 5:30 p.m., Friday, April 29, 2011 at www.downeyca.org. Click on "Human Resources/Employment Opportunities?" Dcownev CALIFORNIA., of admission must be reported as a gift and is subject to the gift limits. Did I Win the Item in a Raffle, Draw- ing or Competition? • Prizes and Awards From Bona Fide Competitions. A prize or award received in a bona fide competition not related to the recipient's status as an official or candidate must be reported as income. Prizes and awards that are received due to official status must be reported as gifts and are subject to the gift limits and disqualification rules. • Raffles and Drawings. Prizes won in raffles and drawings are generally considered gifts. When a prize for an agency raffle or drawing is furnished by an outside parry, the official who wins the prize must report the outside parry as the source of the gift and the agency as the intermediary. The fair market value of the prize is reduced by the amount the official paid to enter the raffle, and the value counts toward the gift limit for that source. Future Columns to Address More Details The next three "Everyday Ethics" columns will cover additional aspects of the gift rules in greater detail. The June column will discuss special kinds of gifts, including informational materials, campaign contributions, wedding gifts, home hospitality, plaques, bequests and inheritances. The August column will examine travel -related gifts. In October, "Everyday Ethics" will look at other special kinds of gifts, including attend- ing events and tickets to political and charitable fundraisers. • More Resources Online Additional information and sample materials related to gift issues for local officials are available at www.ca-ilg.org/gifts. 26 League of California Cities www.cacities.org 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Study Session/Workshop Date(s) DATE: November 16, 2010 At the Planning Commission of November 16, 2010, the Planning Commission will be asked to calendar discussion on several items. One of the items. on the Planning Commission list for .future discussion is a topic regarding conducting an effective meeting. In addition, in recognition of new members on the Planning Commission, staff proposes that the Planning Commission set aside time for a refresher on the Ralph M. Brown Act (open meeting requirements), conflict of interest laws, meeting protocols, and other related subjects. The City Attorney's office will conduct the workshop. In selecting a date (or dates) for discussion of the noted topics, it is requested that the Planning Commission schedule the meeting outside of the regular Planning Commission meetings date. November M i W f- S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 i 4 5 7 8 'y Monday December 2010 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday iatilt;.ity f •/, I L v T F- ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 , ' (, Sunday , 29 November 6. -Team.._._.' 30 1 December 2 3 4 5 16 7 8 9 10 11 12 r13 HOLIDAY ... " City Counc... 14 15 7:30 PM Caball... 16 17 18 19 120 •,� i i 21 . fi7iii.-W-t-iIi7.71'‘",-"E-3-7- #4 Modif.,... ; , and staff ... � . PC Meeting ' '' 22 TEAM;._ —�' 23 YCLOSED,+_-_,7 24 '.'"-CLOSED-: F ` 25 26 27 E, 1 City Counc..., 28 29 .30 , .A'Team OF.'.. ' 31 CLOSED 1 • January 2 n Ewa Nikodem_City o... 11/2/10 11:46 AM riFlei 4. S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 f s 9 January 2011. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday W IYE l 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ; Sunday 27 December i 28 City Counc... I 1 I 29 30 A Team OF..:. 31 CLOSED 1 January 12 I' ---1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 j-11 City Counc... 12 13 14 15 16 17 CLOSED 18 #1 #2 •Sta... PC Meeting {_ 19 7:30 PM Caball... 20 21 . 22 23 -I 24 City Counc...' 31 41 25 I 26 27 8:30 AM Traffi... 28 29 30 February 2. 3 4 5 1 6 Ewa Nikodem_City o... 11/2/10 11:47 AM 'r `4' F' `t ➢ -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Monday Tuesday February 2011 Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (. 6 7 Sunday 31 January i1 February 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 r8 9 10 11 12 13 t20 27 6 14 City Counc... 15 16 7:30 PM Caball... 17 18 . 19 C',*5 Overla= PC Meeting Z1 CLOSED. as 11 ' City Counc.,.. 22 23 24 25 26 March 2 3 - . . , 4 5 , Ewa Nikodem_City o... 11/2/10 11:47 AM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission Manual DATE: January 14, 2011 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission f� Per your request, please find enclosed sample script for public hearing procedures and order of meetings. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call. f 4 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE Chair: States purpose of hearing, explains how the hearing will be conducted, and opens hearing. Requests Members to place on the record any Aex parte disclosures.@ Requests Staff Report. Staff: Presents Staff Report. Chair: Requests Members to ask any questions they may have of Staff regarding Staff Report Requests public testimony. Public: Testimony is received. Applicant should go first and should be given time for rebuttal at the end. Chair should instruct those persons testifying that all comments and questions be directed to the Chair and not to the audience. No dialogues should be permitted. Questions by Commissioners of persons in the audience should be asked before the hearing is closed, preferably when the person is testifying. Comments by Commissioners should be reserved until all testimony is taken and the public portion of the hearing is closed. The Chair may set a time limit for comments by each person testifying and should enforce it even-handedly. Commission: Commission deliberates. Commissioners may ask questions of the applicant or others, but the questions should either seek strictly factual information or ascertain if the applicant will accept certain conditions or changes to the project; this should not be an opportunity for the applicant or the public to re -argue their position. Chair: When deliberation is concluded, the Chair should close the public hearing and entertain a motion and a second. If a resolution is not provided, the motion should direct staff to return with a resolution at the next meeting. Commission: A vote is taken on the motion. Chair: . Announces the outcome of the vote. SAMPLE PUBLIC HEARING SCRIPT "This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider [describe matter]. Once we hear a report from our staff, we will open the hearing for public participation. The applicant will be permitted to speak first, and will be allowed a brief rebuttal after all of the other public testimony. All other speakers will be allowed to speak only once, so please be sure to say everything that you have to say when it comes your turn to speak." "First, do Commissioners have any ex parte disclosures to make?" (Commissioners state any evidence they may have received outside the hearing relating to this matter). "Planning Director, please present your Staff Report." "Does any Commissioner have any questions of staff on this matter?" "We will now open this hearing to the public and listen to public testimony. All questions and comments on this matter should be directed to the Commission, not the audience. Questions will be answered by staff at the close of public testimony. Remember, this will be your only opportunity to comment on this matter tonight." (Chair may accord the applicant more time than is accorded to other speakers. Speakers other than the applicant should be given equal time, but may not yield time to others. Chair and Commissioners should be certain not to demonstrate any favoritism by their manner or speech to any persons involved in the proceeding. If the audience applauds or is boisterous, Chair should caution that this is a business meeting and that those expressions of enthusiasm have no place in a meeting and have no influence on the decisionmaking process. Members of the audience may not make points of information or points of order because they are not members of the legislative body). "Applicant, please make your presentation at this time." "Would anyone else in the audience like to offer testimony on this matter?" "Applicant, do you wish to offer a rebuttal before the public portion of this hearing is closed?" "Do any Commissioners have further questions of the applicant or any of the speakers before the public comment portion of the hearing is closed?" (Limit these to factual inquiries, rather than expressions of opinion). "Would staff please answer questions raised by the public?" (Staff answers all questions, if any, asked by public during the course of the hearing. If further research is required to answer a question, staff may need to defer to a future meeting). "The public testimony portion of the hearing is now closed." "It is now time for Commission deliberation and discussion." (Commission deliberates and may ask questions of staff, and if necessary, of the applicant). "The chair will now entertain a motion." (If there is no resolution for final action in the Commission's agenda packet, the motion should be to direct staff to return with a resolution of approval/denial). Chair announces the outcome of the vote: "The motion passes on a 5-0 vote, meaning that staff will return at our next meeting with a resolution approving the project." MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Heidi Luce, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Notice of Intent DATE: November 9, 2010 For your information, attached please find a copy of the "Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition" filed by Mr. Spencer Karpf relative to the stable ordinance. The notice,along with the Title and Summary, as prepared by the City Attorney, was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula on Thursday, November 4, 2010 per the proof of publication (also attached). Page 1 of 1 Aa i Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of Rolling Hills, California for the purpose of amending Title 17, Zoning, of the City's Municipal Code. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: Those provisions of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code relating to permitted uses of stables within the city do not reflect the wishes of a majority of the City's residents. In fact, while Title 17 restricts the uses of stables, a clear majority of the City's residents support the unfettered use of the interiors of stables for legitimate residential purposes. It is therefore proposed to amend Title 17 of the Code so as to allow for all stables constructed prior to July 12, 2010 to be used for non-agricultural, non -equestrian, non - animal keeping, residential uses such as recreation rooms, storage rooms, play rooms, offices, exercise rooms, hobby rooms, display / gallery rooms, garden / greenhouse space, workshops, or similar residential uses so long as: a. The stable structure retains the appearance of a stable so as to preserve the rural nature and appearance of the City; b. The stable is not used in such a manner that it interferes with the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties; and c. The structure can be restored to use as a stable. d. Appropriate permits are obtained for any modifications done and all such modifications conform to appropriate building codes. Signed: Spencer L. Karpf 14 Caballeros Rd, Rolling Hills CA The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed initiative: AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING EXISTING CONVERTED STABLES TO BE USED FOR NONEQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES The purpose of this initiative is to place on the ballot a proposed ordinance that would allow stables in existence on July 12, 2010 that have been converted to a non - equestrian use to continue to be used for any activity allowed in the residential zones of the City. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to exempt converted stables from rules ordinarily governing the use of stables. Current law limits the use of stables to sheltering and feeding of permitted domestic animals, agricultural use, vehicle storage and household storage. Current law also allows tack rooms of limited sizes within stable structures to be used for passive purposes that create no impact on the senses greater than traditional stables. Under current law, no portion of a stable or tack room may be used as sleeping quarters. The proposed ordinance would change current law with respect to stables existing as of July 12, 2010 that have been converted to a non -equestrian residential use. These converted stables are not allowed under current law. The proposed ordinance would allow them to continue to be used for any residential use so long as the exterior has the appearance of a stable, the stable is capable of being converted back to animal -keeping, the structure is in compliance with the Building Code, and the use does not constitute a nuisance. The proposed ordinance would allow converted stables to continue to be used in their existing location for any non -equestrian residential purposes, such as hobby, recreation and exercise rooms, home offices, storage, play rooms, galleries, workshops, and guest houses. Properties with converted stables would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit or have a separate set aside area for a stable and corral. The proposed ordinance does not change current law as it applies to stables constructed prior to July 12, 2010 that are used for equestrian purposes and have not been converted to a non -equestrian use. It also does not apply to stables constructed after July 12, 2010. A full copy of the proposed ordinance is printed on this petition for review by any prospective signer. Palos Verdes Peninsula News 550 Deep Valley Dr. Ste 293B Rolling Hills Estates CA 90274 Proof of Publication (2015.5 C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years; and I am not a party to or interested in the notice published. i am the chief legal advertising clerk of the publisher of the PALOS VERDES PENINSULA NEWS a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published weekly in the City of Rolling Hills Estates County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of February 15, 1977 Case Number C824957, that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: November 4 All in the year 2010 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Dated at Rolling Hills Estates, California, this 4th day of November 2010 !C✓'.�-- Signature 1 macea rr w err ;tinier Notice is hereby given b rsons whose names appear hereon of their intention I to the petition within the City of Rolling Hills, California rur me purpose of amending Title 17, Zoning, of the City's MuMcipal.Code. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contem- plated In the petition is as follows: Those provisions of Idle 17 of the City's Code relating to permitted uses of stables within the not reflect the wishes of a majority of the City's residents., In fact, while Tele 17 restricts the uses of stables, a clear majority of the City's residents support the unfettered use of the interiors of stables for legitimate residential purposes. It is therefore proposed to amend Title ,17 of the Code so as to allow for all stables constnrried prior to July 12, 2010 to be used for non-agricultural, non. equestrian, non -animal keeping, residential uses such as recreation MOMS, storage rooms, play rooms. offices, ' exercise rooms, hobby rooms, display f gallery rooms, garden I greenhouse space, workshops, or similar resi- dential Uses so long as: a. The stable structure retains the appearance of a sta- ble so as to preserve the rural nature and appear- ance of the City; - ti -The stable is:n + feres with the quiet enjoyment of neighboring proper- ties; and c. The structure can be restored to use as a stable. d. Appropriate permits are obtained for any modifica- tions done and all such modifications conform to appropriate building codes. • Signed: - Spencer L. Karpi 14 Caballeros Rd, Rolling Hills CA 1 The City Attorney has prepared the following title and summa- ry of the chief purpose and points of the proposed inf latnre: AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING EXISTING CONVERTED STABLES TO BE USED FOR NONEOUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES The purpose of this Initiative is to place on the ballot e proposed ordinance that would allow stables in existence on July 12, 2010 that have been converted to a non -equestrian use to continue to be used to any activity allowed in the resi- dential zones of the City. The purpose of the proposed ordi- nance is to exempt converted stables from rules ordinarily governing the use of stables. Current law limits the use of stables to sheltering and feeds_.. Ing of permitted domestic animals, agricultural use, vehicle • , storage and household storage. Current law also allows tack . rooms of limiteb sties within.stable structures to be used -tor - passive purposes that create no impact on the senses greater than traditional stables. Under current law, no portion of a sta- ble or tack room may be used as sleeping quarters. The proposed ordinance would change current law with - respect to stables existing as of July 12, 2010 that have been converted to a non -equestrian residential use. These con- verted stables are not allowed ,under current. law._ The pro-' posed ordinance would allow them to continue to be used for any residential use so long as the exterior has the appearance of a stable, the stable is capable of being converted back to, _ animal -keeping, the structure is in compliance with :the -Building Code,' and the use does not constitute a nuisance. The proposed ordinance would allow `converted stables to continue to be used in their existing location for any non- 'equestrian residential purposes, such as hobby, recreation and exercise rooms, home offices, storaged play rooms, gal- ' lanes, workshops, and guest houses.' Properties with con- verted stables would not be required to obtain a conditional use permit or have a separate set aside area for a stable and corral. • The proposed ordinance does not change currentlaw as applies to stables constructed prior to July 12, 2010 that are used for equestrian purposes and have not been converted to a non -equestrian use. It also does not apply to stables con- structed after July 12, 2010.- A full copy of the proposed ordinance Is printed on this peti- tion for review by any prospective signer. Published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on November 4, 2010. sir Mon, Nov 2, 2009 1:29 PM Subject: Save the Date: Brown Bag Seminar Date: Monday, November 2, 2009 12:59 PM From: azury <azury@southbaycities.org> To: <azurys@yahoo.com> Conversation: Save the Date: Brown Bag Seminar Join us for the November Brown Bag Seminar on Municipal Government with Mike Jenkins: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:00 pm —1: 00 pm @Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility West Basin Municipal Water District 1935 S. Hughes Way El Segundo FREE - for all South Bay Councilmembers & City Staff Bring your own lunch West Basin Municipal Water District is also offering tours of the facility after the seminar. If you are interested, please let us know if you are interested when you RSVP. Please RSVP to azury@southbaycities.org <http:// us.mc526.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose? to=azury@southbaycities.org> or jacki@southbaycities.org <http:// Page 1 of 2 C4 MEMORANDUM TO: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: OPEN PERMITS REPORT CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2009 Attached are reports showing open construction permits and code enforcement cases. The open permit report includes permits that were issued by L.A. County Building and Safety and Willdan since December 2007. There is construction in the City for which permits were issued prior to December 2007, but which are not included in this list. The code enforcement report includes currently open code enforcement cases. Page 1 of 1 Open Permits October 30, 2009 (NOTE: This is a list of open construction permits since December 2007 only. There are projects under construction in the City, for which permits were issued prior to Dec. 2007, but which are not listed here). Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 1 Acacia Ln. Lieb Building, Grading New stable and related grading 12/09/08 (Willdan Eng.) 2 Appaloosa Ln. Black Geologic Soils and geology investigation 9/15/08 Submit for plan check for new SFR 8/31/09 Demolition of SFR 8/10/09 3 Appaloosa Ln Foozonmehr Soils Soil report review, drainage and grading 4/30/09 Grading -plan check 1 Buckboard Trail. Robinson Water service Water line/service 427/09 2 Buckboard Ln. Okuma Spa New gunite spa 09/22/08 Electrical BBQ & outdoor kitchen 3/6/09 Gas Gas line 3/6/09 5 Buggy Whip Nguyen Geotech. Building, Plumbing (Willdan) Addition, remodel and new pool 5/8/09 16 Buggy Whip Dr. Hutchison Building, Electrical Remodel 3080 sq. ft. existing residence, 12/05/07 Plumbing, 855 sq. ft. addition, related. electrical, 10/16/08 Mechanical plumbing, furnaces & AC pool 5/07/08 7/24/08 Plumbing Spa inside pool 3/26/09 5 Caballeros Margeta Mechanical Change out water heater 7/1/09 30 Caballeros McDonald Plan Check submittal grading, wall and drainage Horse path in rear of property, not to exceed 3'walls . 8/20/09 Roofing Re -roof 8/24/09 25 Caballeros Rd. Berenato Electrical, Electrical, mechanical (boiler) & 07/17/08 Mechanical, Plumbing plumbing for pool/patio remodel 12/12/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety & Willdan Report Dec. 2007 through September 30, 2009 Public/Open Permits -rev Oct.09 1 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 5 Chesterfield Rd. Schmidt Building, Electrical, 995 sq ft addition, related temp power 08/22/08 Plumbing pole, plumbing, and retaining garden 9/26/08 wall 10/14/08 0 Chestnut Ln. Meidl Building, Electrical, New SFR, related temp power, electrical, 08/28/08 Mechanical, Plumbing mechanical, plumbing 12/13/07 5 Chestnut Ln. Spellberg Building Re -roof 09/15/08 Septic Install sewage treatment system 10/20/08 17 Cinchring (vacant lot) Wallace Grading for access road Access road for geological exploration 7/30/09 1 Crest Rd. E. Huh Building, Grading, Extensive remodel and addition, grading, 07/0708 Plumbing, Septic related plumbing and sewage treatment- 05/28/08 enhanced 10/02/08 05/08/08 10/14/08 10/16/08 Revised grading Revised grading 8/3/09 Bldg. -Guest House Guest house 8/3/09 2 Crest Rd. W. Leake Building Replace windows 10/15/08 5 Crest Rd. W. Soderstrom Pool, Building Remodel pool, water features 02/12/08 Mechanical Pool eqipm 2/2/09 7 Crest Rd. W. Henke Mechanical Replace FAU Unit 12/16/08 26 Crest Rd E. Hadley Plumbing Replace gas line 11/06/08 67 Crest Rd. East Goldstein Building Convert garage to living area and add new garage 6/19/08 Building Small addition to previous addition (56 s.f.) 9/14/09 Data based on LACO Building and Safety & Willdan Report Dec. 2007 through September 30, 2009 Public/Open Permits -rev Oct.09 2 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 3 Eastfield Bennett Roof Repair roof 1/7/09 9 Eastfield Dr. Margolis Septic, Electrical, New SFR, remodel stable, Sewage 06/05/08 Building treatment and electrical 07/22/08 08/01/08 12 Eastfield Dr. Itoh . Building, Plumbing Addition and remodel, plumbing 06/23/08 Doors, windows, bathroom, kitchen 08/04/08 Permits expired; 11/26/08 then reissued 1/21/09 18 Eastfield Rich Building 25 s.f. addition to closet 5/28/09 25 Eastfield Baumann Electrical Solar panels 4/9/09 Gas Gas line repair 6/16/09 45 Eastfield Dr. Thomas Building, Extensive remodel & addition, basement, 03/12/08 Mechanical, and related plumbing and ductwork 10/03/08 Plumbing 08/06/08 Building Porte Cochere 12/04/08 Plumbing New 799 s.f. pool/spa 5/8/09 46 Eastifled Fogle Plan check submission Addition 10/6/08 75 Eastfield Dr. Towle Building, Electrical, Add 47 sq. ft. to kitchen, related 04/08/08 Mechanical, Plumbing electrical, mechanical, plumbing 05/29/08 4 El Concho Zee Building Reconstruct deck (expired) 1/14/09 reissued 6/19/09 Mechanical Water line, gas line, electrical repairs 6/19/09 15 Georgeff Keegan Geology report Soils/geology for new pool 10/28/08 16 Georgeff Rd. Beilke Swim pool, grading PooUspa, grading for play area 04/02/08 03/24/08 Grading Retaining wall for play area (not to exceed 2'8") 4/27/09 8 Hackamore Noel Plan check submission Barn; grading for access & drainage 3/27/09 Data based on LACO Building and Safety & Willdan Report Dec. 2007 through September 30, 2009 Public/Open Permits -rev Oct.09 3 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 1 Johns Canyon Hofman Plumbing Main drain in swimming pool 6/4/09 7 Maverick Ln. Howroyd Building Retaining walls/caissons 6/26/08 10/2/09 8 Maverick Karpf Geology Soils, geology for major additionDemo, 3/24/09 Plan Check submission Remodel, addition to SFR 6/9/09 3 Morgan Lane Douglas Grading Tennis Court 2/26/09 Building Wall for tennis court 4 Openbrand Rd. Lucas Swim Pool, Remodel pool, add spa, including 02/12/08 building, plumbing plumbing, fireplace 5/14/08 6 Outrider Wachs Electrical Electrical for bath remodel 9/5/09 8 Outrider Rd. Resich Building Addition, with w/cellar, storage basement 07/22/08 13 Outrider Joo Misc. Replastering pool 3/4/09 Building 567 s.f. addition & remodel 10/21/09 9 Packsaddle Rd. E. Negri Grading, Building Addition (987 sq. ft); related grading 12/09/08 (Wilidan) Septic tank -enhanced Demo. Demo pool 10/17/08 Plumbing New pool 9/11/09 3 Packsaddle E. Lin Demolition Demo. Existing house 9/30/09 Building -plan check Plan Check for new home 6/15/09 Grading/walls Grading and drainage for new home 6/15/09 2 Pine Tree Ln. Riedyk Building Interior & exterior remodel & new patio 11/19/08 Plumbing Demo. exst. pool and new pool 6/4/09 2 Pheasant Ln Askari Builidng Repair pool and caissons 12/19/08 3 Poppy Trail Jonas Plan check for grading Grading for recreation room and access 2/26/09 Erosion Control Erosion control for graded access 11/4/08 18 Portuguese Bend Road Saridakis/Vinyard Bank Building Electrical New residence and grading, electrical, plumbing etc. for new residence 2005-2009 Plumbing New pool and pool equipment 6/08 Mechanical Data based on LACO Building and Safety & Willdan Report Dec. 2007 through September 30, 2009 Public/Open Permits -rev Oct.09 4 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 18 Portuguese Bend Road Vinyard Building Walls for utility panels in the easement 2/17/09 Bank/Nuccion 25 Portuguese Bend Rd, Cho Building New stable 4/23/09 36 Portuguese Bend Rd. Nelson Mechanical Water heater 8/24/09 40 Portuguese Bend Rd. Su Pool, Electrical New pool/spa, related electric 04/09/08 Erosion control Erosion control 11/6/08 10 Possum Ridge Bates Grading Barn w/loft 2/5/09 Building 7/19/09 5 Ringbit R. E. Building 30 s.f. addition, remodel 6/1/09 Electrical 8/21/09 Plumbing 7 Roundup Nuccion Mechanical . Change out water heater 3/24/09 4 Running Brand Petersen Mechanical Change out water heater 2/4/09 34 Saddleback Rd. McGrath Roofing Re -roof 08/17/09 64 Saddleback Browning • Roofing Re -roof 8/4/09 6 Sagebrush Ln. Hao Building, Septic New SFR & sewage treatment system 08/11/08 Trellis, pool & spa 1/16/09 Mechanical, Plumbing Air condt., venting, appliance 5/13/09 Data based on LACO Building and Safety & -Willdan Report Dec. 2007 through September 30, 2009 Public/Open Permits -rev Oct:09 5 Code Enforcement Active Case Log October 2009 Address Owner 'i; Issue ` Status 38 Saddleback McGrath Barn conversion w/o approval Awaiting outcome of stable ordinance 8 & 10 Bowie Tsai/Torres Wall dispute City Attorney handling complaint 7 Quail Ridge So. Shoemaker Barn conversion w/o approval Awaiting outcome of stable ordinance 3 Pine Tree Podell Less than 450 sq ft stable without approval Awaiting outcome of stable ordinance 4 Open Brand Lucas New outdoor fireplace, BBQ, trellis w/o approvals Working with architect on permits for trellis and BBQ 2 Pine Tree Rietdyk Grading for play area w/o approvals Grading for staging of construction equipment for pool Landscaping & grading plan submitted & approved; County reviewing grading plan; slope to be restored; small play area approved 76 Eastfield George/Culver Barn conversion without approval Awaiting outcome of stable ordinance 33 Crest Rd W. Krambeer Lighting and shed/stable usage Lighting resolved; awaiting outcome of stables ordinance 46 Eastfield Fogel Roof conversion to deck on pool house w/o approvals Awaiting revised plan for roof, working with architect 7 Caballeros Kwon Trellis in side yard w/o approvals Letter to owner notifying variance needed; City monitoring 33 Chuckwagon Hazelrigg Outdoor kitchen construction w/o approvals and w/o building permit Working with property owner; County inspected 1 PUBLIC/Yolanta/Code Enforcement/Reports/Active tableOct09 Code Enforcement Active Case Log October 2009 Address . Owner Issue ' Status 19 Southfield Heitzler Substandard barn construction w/out approval Waiting for outcome of stables ordinance 56 Eastfield Coser Outdoor kitchen —needs bldg permit Letter sent; working with owner 32 Middleridge Westergaard Construction of walking path on slope w/o zoning approval Plan submitted & approved; owner to restore part of slope 8 Hackamore Noel Unapproved arch over driveway; reconstructed deck without permits Letter to owner; City working owner regarding approvals and permits 30 Caballeros McDonald Horse trail including plans for retaining walls w/o approvals Letter to owner; County working with owner on required plans and permit application; City monitoring 16 Eastfield Gregorio Outdoor lighting too bright (complaint) Letter to owner; monitoring 6 Saddleback Reiter Possible non-compliance with PC approved plans - new garage Working with architect to submit revised plan 8 Possum Ridge Talbot Outodoor lighting too bright (complaint) Letter to owner; monitoring 40 Eastfield Tonsich Grading without approval(s) Letter to owner; owner to restore graded area 6 Caballeros Mabry Outdoor kitchen w/o bldg permit City working with owner & County regarding building permits 2 PUBLIC/Yolanta/Code Enforcement/Reports/Active_tableOct09 C1ty ol,eofl ny JdlG INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION WILDLIFE PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FROM: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SAFE LANDSCAPES WORKSHOP DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2007 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Attached you will find a flyer for a workshop that addresses sustainable and fire -safe landscaping. If you would like to attend, the City will RSVP for you; please contact City Hall no later than November 13 if you are interested. Thank you. AD RH Staff Report.doc ® Printed on Recycled Paper UN1VErlSITY -0J- CALIFORNIA University of California Cooperative Extension, Los Angeles County Division of Agriculture find Natural Resources UC CE From the campus to the comrmt/titl' 1-1.1 youth Development Farm Advisor CardcninF and Ilorlirllulrc Natural Resource Nutrition, Family & Consumer Scien,e SAFE Landscapes: Sustainable and Fire -Safe Landscaping Workshop for the Santa Monica Mountains SAFE Landscapes, a program of the University of California Cooperative Extension, wants to show you how to make your landscape Sustainable and Fire safE. Much of Los Angeles County is a wildland-urban interface, where habitat and housing inter -mix. If you live in this area, it's not a question of IF the wildland will burn, but WHEN, and the next few years are expected to be some of the worst on record. S.R.E. EtiVIDSGODE5 200R CAlendar and Gutdebad, slmitnaMr and nIMll. landscapes. In The t\nalaMt I than !Mortar,. Come find out how to make your landscape beautiful and fire -safe while being a good neighbor to wildlands. Get tips and techniques on planting, maintenance, and building materials to help you and your home survive the next fire. Learn about defensible space, vegetation management, and invasive plants from Cooperative Extension experts, local fire authorities, and wildland managers, and get your own copy of the beautiful SAFE Landscapes 2008 Calendar and Guidebook! This series of workshops will be held in October and November 2007 in locations around the county. The Santa Monica Mountains workshop will be Saturday, November 17, 10:30 am -1:30 pm at the Michael Landon Community Center at Malibu Bluffs Park in Malibu. The workshop is free, but registration is required. For more information, please visit http://celosangeles.ucdavis.edu/Natural Resources/Wildland Fire.htm To register for this workshop, please complete and mail or fax the back of this flyer, or register online at: http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/survey/survey.cfm?surveynumber=2265 If you have questions or would like to register by phone, please contact Valerie Borel at 323-260-3851 or by email at vtborel@ucdavis.edu. Don't live in the Santa Monica Mountains? We have two other workshops this Fall: October 20 in Altadena and November 3 in Newhall. Visit our website to register for these dates: http://celosangeles.ucdavis.edu/Natural Resources/Wildland Fire.htm. 4800 E Cesar E Chavez Avenue, Los Angeles. CA 90022 Tel: (323) 260-2267 • Fax: (323) 260-5208 • http✓/celosangeles.ucdavis.edu The University of California. Los Angeles County, and U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating since 1914 University of California Cooperative Extension SAFE Landscapes Workshop Registration for the Santa Monica Mountains Name: Address: Email: Phone: Do you live in the wildland-urban interface? Yes ❑ No ❑ If not, please tell us why this topic interests you: Mail to: Valerie Borel UCCE-Los Angeles 4800 E. Cesar Chavez Ave. Los Angeles, CA, 90022 FAX (323)260-5271 For questions contact Valerie at 323-260-3851, vtborel©ucdavis.edu or Sabrina Drill at 323-260-3404, sldrill©ucdavis.edu Malibu Bluffs Park is located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, CA 90265. Their phone number is (310) 317-1364. The park is located at the intersection of Malibu Canyon Road and Pacific Coast Highway. http://www.ci.malibu.ca.us/index.cfm?fuseaction=detailgroup&navid=174&cid=3826 The University of Califomia prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person in any of its programs or activities. (Complete nondiscrimination policy statement can be found at http://danr.ucop.edu/aa/danr nondiscrimination and affir.htm ) Directinquiriesregarding the University's nondiscrimination policies to the Affirmative Action Director, University of California, ANR, 1111 Franklin St., 6- Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096. 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 Cit 0/,errng�rrr, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Agenda Item No.: 3-D Mtg. Date: 09-10-07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES / WORK PLAN DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 ATTACHMENT: Preliminary Planning Commission Priorities and Work Plan BACKGROUND As a result of the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council in June 2007, staff compiled a list of 43 action items to complete. The projects were consolidated into 8 initiatives and, with the input of the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 21, 2007, they have been prioritized. The prioritized list represents a work plan for the upcoming 18+ months. Due to the scope of each item along with day-to-day responsibilities of staff, the timeline for the 8 projects extends to March 2009. Staff has also compiled a list of projects that were discussed at the joint meeting, which are ongoing. DISCUSSION At its meeting of August 21, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the consolidated list of action items resulting from the June joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. The consolidated list attached represents the priorities of the Planning Commission as well as a work plan. The City Council is being provided with the list for information as well as concurrence with the direction recommended by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the Planning Commission's priorities and work plan and provide comments. The City Council's feedback will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. AD/ 09-10-07PCPriorities_work plan-cta.doc Page 1 of 1 ® Printed on Recycled Paper PRELIMINARY PRIORITY TOPIC SCHEDULED SUBMITTAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 Consider including basement wells in the pad coverage; the walls in structural coverage and the width of the well(s) in total coverage (hardscape). Introduction Nov -07 Public Hearing Dec -07 Requires Code Amendment. Once the RHCA Board adopts the new basement regulations, consider amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the RHCA requirements. Consider limiting the size of development and consider limiting the size of basements. May result in Code Amendment. 2 Consider amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the requirement that a 4' walkway be provided along the entire perimeter of a structure, including the basement well. Public Hearing Dec -07 Requires Code Amendment. coe 3 Research the issue of allowing export and/or import of dirt ( to avoid raising height of pad and to remove dirt that comes from a basement). Introduction April -08 Public Hearing June -08 Requires Code Amendment. tuoy the issue o allowing greater than 40% disturbed area of the lot, if the resulting slopes would create more natural landforms ( at least 3:1 slope). Provide flexibility in the Zoning Code, where no Variance would be required for exceedance of 40% disturbed area if the development would result in retaining the natural terrain to maximum extend possible. Consider allowing greater than 30% pad coverage, if the development would result in less grading, lesser slopes and not be on the edge of the pad, (allowing for flat areas around the structure). May result in Code Amendment: Consider requiring "grading plan of action" with the application and "grading g g progress/status report" on a monthly basis during grading. Aug -08 Administrative Process. May be implemented in conjunction with Code Amendment to export soil. Consider rewarding applicants for creating successful projects with appropriate grading by not requiring a variance ( in lieu of encouraging 2:1 slope because a variance is too difficult to obtain). For discussion after observing projects that were allowed to export dirt. 2 4 Once the RHCA Boards adopts the new "out of grade" regulations, consider amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the RHCA requirements. Introduction Jul -08 Public Hearing Sept -08 Requires Code Amendment. Review existing definitions and amend and/or add definitions for certain phrases, such as property, site, project. Introduction Jul -08 Public Hearing Sept 08 Requires Code Amendment. 5 Review RHCA regulations concerning stables; consider allowing storage in stables but not living or recreation uses. Oct -08 Pending City Council Direction. Requires Code Amendment. Consider having the stables go through the same approval process as all other structures (i.e. Site Plan Review approval). May result in Code Amendment. Educate the public on the use of stables for stable specific uses and that conversion of stables to living areas is not allowed. May result in Code Amendment. Require that property owners building a stable, sign an affidavit stating that conversion of stables to other uses (except storage) are prohibited. 3 6 Consider requiring preliminary landscaping plan at the beginning of the development review process. Nov -08 Some tasks may result in Code Amendment Examine threshold for requiring financial security for landscaping for plans approved by the Commission. Consider asking for landscaping plans for the entire property to show the as- built landscape environment. Analyze the need for additional landscape plan review volunteer to avoid the perception of conflict of interest when the current landscape consultant is also the designer for the applicant. Examine if security deposits should be required for over the counter approvals and at what threshold. Discuss water conservation and encourage drought tolerant plants. May result in Code Amendment. Continue researching computer aided programs for better representations of projects. Dec -08 Ongoing research. Periodic update reports to PC up to this time. 8 Investigate PVE certificate of inspection requirements when property is for sale. Mar -09 May result in Code Amendment. 4 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 — 2007 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: C1t 0/iei JO, :f It (')RFF (R -TED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR PLANNING RELATED ITEMS UPDATE SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 1. On Monday, September 10, the City Council will vote on an Ordinance amending the way Commissioners are selected (Traffic, Planning and Wildlife Preservation Committee). In the past several years, different Council members brought up the topic of selection of Commissioners. They questioned whether the current City's process provides residents with the opportunity to be selected for a Commission when Commissioners term expires. In April 2007 the City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of two Council members to address the reappointment process. The Ad Hoc Committee met on several occasions and recommended that the current process be changed. The Ordinance calls for extending the term of all Commissioners to four (4) years, (Planning Commissioners are already at 4 years) and opening the selection process to all residents upon expiration of any Commissioner's term. Currently, only the Commissioner whose term is to expire is asked if he/she would like to continue serving on the Commission. The new process would invite the Commissioner whose term is to expire to apply for re -appointment as well as provide an opportunity for other residents to apply. City Council Personnel Committee would make the selection to either re -appoint the incumbent or select another person and would recommend the appointment to the full Council. The Ordinance provides for staggered terms. 2. On Monday, September 10, 2007, the City Council will discuss stables and whether or not modifying the Municipal Code relative to the definition or use of stables should be considered. Also, staff is asking for direction on enforcing stable conversions. Staff is recommending to the City Council that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission with direction as to the elements of the Municipal Code to be modified. 3. Recently, there has been confusion on the part of some residents about the intent of the City's Lighting Ordinance and its implementation. Specifically the pilaster/entry lights and type of fixtures were questioned. After several discussions at City Council meetings, Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Staff will do research on the availability of acceptable fixtures and lights and will agendize this item for the October Planning Commission meeting for discussion and possibly for a public hearing to amend the current ordinance in November. ® Primed on Recycled Paper 4. During the field trip to 40 Eastfield on August 21, 2007 construction at 7 Outrider (Peden) was observed and questioned. The Pedens are constructing a trash enclosure next to their garage. Staff requested that the enclosure be lowered and covered with trellis, rather that a solid roof, as was the preferred method of the owners. 5. Commissioner Henke inquired about several structures that were constructed on the barn side of 6 Possum Ridge Road (Langer). Staff spoke to the property owner and visited the site and confirmed that Mr. Langer constructed two horse troughs, chicken coop and hen house and 4-5 foot high by 4 foot wide and 6 foot long covered shelter for the animals to roam under. The City's ordinance does not regulate farm shelters for animals, other than barns and such structures do not require building permits. 6. I attended a pre -grading meeting at 12 Southfield, where grading is proposed to commence in the next 3 weeks for a new residence. Everyone in attendance including the grading contractor and the property owner were informed that the limit of grading, property lines, easement lines and setback lines must be staked and kept staked throughout the construction process. 7. Staff developed a new Grading and Excavation Information form to be included in the application packet for discretionary permits (Planning Commission cases). The new form requires detailed information on quantities of dirt generated from cut and fill for different areas, such as residence, driveway, basement, etc. as well as information on pad elevations. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Tony, the City Manger, or me. cc: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Resident Information DATE: July 21, 2009 As a result of the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission on July 6, Mr. Lynn Gill, member of the Focus Group, provided the attached information. According to Mr. Gill, this is an example primarily to illustrate how current rules might force excessive grading and thinks may be helpful as the Commission deliberate how to best respond to the City Council. . Thank you. Page 1 of 1 { AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 BUILDING PAD COVERAGE REQUIREMENT IN RELATION TO GRADING ON A LOT The Focus Group recommended that owners not be required to grade excessive Building Pads in order to construct allowable structural coverages on a property. The group's observation is that such additional grading of a Building Pad results in overly large flat areas that need watering and maintenance, and steep banks that do not fit into the natural looking terrain of Rolling Hills. The hope is that by re -defining the grading requirements, owners will be encouraged to design more environmentally friendly improvements, by fitting structures into the natural terrain. Illustration: 2 acre Gross Lot 43,560 sq ft x 2 acres Net Lot is 80% (87,120 x 0.8) of Gross Lot Maximum Structural Lot Coverage @ 20% of Net Lot Maximum Disturbed Area @ 40% of Net Lot Existing Building Pad Allowable Building Pad Coverage on Existing Building Pad @ 30% = 87,120 sq ft = 69,696 sq ft 13,939 sq ft = 27,878 sq ft = 16,000 sq ft = 4,800 sq ft Assume that the owner wishes to build 8,364 sq ft of structures on the lot (garage, pool, trellises, cabana, allowance for barn, etc.), which is the maximum allowable structural coverage if the Building Pad were to coincide with the Maximum Disturbed Area. Under the current rules, the owner would be required to grade an additional 27,878 sq ft — 16,000 sq ft = 11,878 sq ft of Buildable Pad in order to be allowed to build the additional structures. The Focus Group recommendation is to NOT require this additional grading, so long as the "two wheelbarrow" rule can be honored (enough level space around the structures to allow two wheelbarrows to pass). The rationale is to maintain the natural terrain of Rolling Hills as much as possible (versus forcing grading of flat areas with often resulting steep banks), and reduce watering requirements to maintain additional disturbed areas. Observations: 1. Maximum Structural Lot Coverage and Allowable Building Pad Coverage appear to be inconsistent? If the entire 27,878 sq ft Disturbed Area were used for a Building Pad, only 3,364 sq ft Structural Lot Coverage is possible (27,878 x 0.3), or 12% of Net Lot (not 20%). 2. Perhaps Maximum Structural Lot Coverage and Maximum Disturbed Area @ 40% of Net Lot would be sufficient to regulate structural lot coverage and disturbed area? The percentages could go something like: 0-1 acres @15%, 1-2 acres @ 12%, etc. The Commission could look at the statistics presented at the meeting regarding the historical relation between lot size and structural coverage, and set some reasonable lot coverage percentage guidelines. Keeping the Maximum Disturbed Area at 40% would control excessive grading, and the architect and owner could determine how best to fit the desired structural coverage onto the lot, without excessive grading. Ultimately, each lot is different and the Planning Commission can make decisions if proposed improvements fit in with Polling Hills culture. Frank Loyd Wright: "No house should ever be on a hill or on anything. It should be of the hill. Belonging to it. Hill and house should live together each the happier for the other." Gabriel Ludger Chartier I'OJECT'S APPROVED BY T E PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2004 — Data provided for all approved projects Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'I Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % I Pinto Ln 1/04 CUP & VR for 400 s.f. detached garage in setback 2655 -house 400 -garage 719 -pool 1890 -court 750 -shed 80,729 9.5 19.8 35.7 None 35.0 1 Acacia Ln 1/04 SPR & CUP for new 768 s.f. stable & convert exst. mixed use to carriage hs. with addition 4864 -house 748 -garage 768 -stable 3020 -carriage hs • 77,630 12.2 20.1 18.0 568 20.1 17 Middleridge Ln 2/04 Mod. to SPR & V R for additions which encroach into setbacks 3160 -house 527 -garage 36,013 11.8 , 18.8 76.5 None 24.4 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 1 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 14 Portuguese Bend Rd 2/04 SPR for 1371 s.f. addition & 271 s.f. porches 4065 -house 658 -garage 310-gst/hs 918 -stable 2261 -court 51,833 16.9 27.9 37.4 None 32.2 16 Cinchring Rd. 2/04 SPR & VR for grading to enlarge pad & for 8-10 foot wall, spa & trellis 4581 -house 625 -garage 5'75 -pool 153 -shed 69,000 11.05 20.0 31.7 . 338 38.4 1 Southfield 2/04 VR for 911 s.f. addition which encroaches into setbacks 2844 -house 596 -garage 460 -stable 150-spa/gazebo 113,256 5.42 8.0 58.7 None 32.7 22 Crest Rd. E 3/04 SPR - New residence 10367 -house 1234- garage 1600 -basement 183,360 6.8 14.4 20.6 3716 35.4 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 2 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage To Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb Area* % 8 Possum Ridge 3/04 SPR — New residence 4620 -house 640 -garage 390 -pool 2816 -basement 181,073 3.4 6.6 29.4 3414 21.5 5 Hillside Ln. 4/04 SPR grading for stable and addition to house 6380 -house 640 -garage 910 -pool 600- cabana 1440 -stable 99,978 10.8 15.3 28.2 1890 37.6 18 Pine Tree Ln. 4/04 SPR — New residence, V R- wall in setback, CUP -sports court in basement 7214 -house 1253 -garage 700 -pool 6613 -basement 123,710 7.9 17.1 29.8 7050 39.6 3 Eucalyptus 5/04 • SPR — New residence • 5530 -house 973 -garage 800 -pool 2640 bsmnt. 72,744 10.5 . 18.6 29.5 3870 39.5 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 3 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 11 Eastfield 7/04 VR-additions which encroach into side setback 3175 -house 925 -garage 600 -hobby 627 - pool 79,896 7.35 21.3 30.0 None 31.0 1 Meadowlark 7/04 VR-add garage in setback & exceed disturbed area 2308 -house 570 -garage 484 -pool 480 -hobby sh 23,406 18.7 32.7 67.5 None 47.8 2 Cinchring 8/04 CUP to convert stable into cabana 720 -cabana 3251 -house 490 -garage 850 -pool 49,365 12.4 27.9 44.63 None 39 6 Caballeros 9/04 SPR-additions & VR to import soil & encroach into setback 4316 -house 542 -garage 427 -pool 384 -stable 35,165 18.1 33.75 60.2 195 import 39.7 12 Southfield 12/04 City Council SPR — New , residence &VR to exceed disturbed area 5080 -house 820 -garage 748 -pool 3480-bsmnt 38,173 19.0 32.8 28.9 2464 48.8 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 4 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2005 — Data Provided for All Projects Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 20 Eastfield (ZC No. 694) 5/05 SPR - Stable 4458 -house 693 -garage 880 -stable 1440-basemt 46,040 14.1 22,3 25.3 (stable) 41.5 (residence) • 196 48.6 (prior variance) 32 Middleridge So. (ZC No. 695) 1/05 VR —pool in side setback 3,911 -house 768 -garage 94,755 7.0 12.9 46.1 None 24.9 15 Eastfield (ZC No. 697) 3/05 SPR -Stable addition; VRs- lot coverage 2617 -house 610 -garage 540-basemt 1385 -stable 56,310 24.05 36.8 39.65 None 48.2 5 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.Lower (ZC No. 698) 2/05 CUP —cabana; VR-cabana in side setback 5167 -house 265 -cabana 1408 -garage 2080-basemt 194,713 4.4 8.0 32.3 None 21.0 44 Portuguese Bend Rd. (ZC 701) 4/05 SPR, VR, CUP (Guest house) 8402 -house 1605 -garage 738 -guest house 1048-basemt 163,520 8.6 19.4 25.1 2020 34.8 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 5 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 18 Eastfield Rd. (ZC 703) 6/05 SPR & CUP - Garage & stable VR-disturbed area 450— stable 62,471 14.8 32.6 31.5 656 48.4 40 Portuguese Bend Rd. (ZC 699) 6/05 & 3/08 -Mod SPR-Grading, New house and stable 9490 -house 1776 -garage 6640-basemt 575 -stable 185,208 8.9 18.8 25.1 3,988 39 7 Packsaddle (ZC 704) 7/05 VR-addition setback 3252 -house 672 -garage 92,347 7.0 12.0 75.2 None 18.0 20 Eastfield (ZC 705) 7/05 SPR-Pool VR-Pool setback 4458- house 693 -garage 1,440-basemt 46,040 I6.3 25.5 41.5 None 48.6 (prior V R) 17 Crest Rd. E. (ZC 706) 8/05 SPR-Grading & addition 8960 -house 1008 -garage 7350-basemt 395,524 4.4 9.4 26.3 5998 .20.4 25 Portuguese Bend Rd. (ZC 708 B) 9/05 SPR- Gar & addtn CUP-GH & sport court VR-Court setback 6316 -house 875 —garage 835- basemt 733- guest h 222,080 7.7 13.0 24.6 1248 18.4 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 6 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* 2 Southfield (ZC 710) 9/05 CUP -Pool house VR's-setbacks, structure & lot coverage, disturbed area 2583 -house 506 -garage 327 -pool h 480 -stable 20,473 24.9 38.7 51.8 None 49.8 (prior variance) 1 Crest Rd. E. (ZC 712) 9/05 & 4/09 SPR-Addtn CUP -Guest house V R -Disturbed area 6722 -house 1045 -garage 976 -basement 744 -guest house 98,960 10.9 21.7 28.2 1824 54.3 (modified in 2009) 44 Chuckwagon (ZC 715) 9/05 VR-Addition setback 4,799 -house 649 -garage 87,080 9.2 19.8 29.9 None 35.2 2 Outrider (ZC 71 I) • 10/05 SPR-Grading VR-Dist area CUP-Rec room 5560 -house 528 -garage 670-rec rm 41,840 18.8 29.4 54.4 1244 63.8 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 7of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2006 — Data Provided for New Homes, Major Additions Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage Total Coverage Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* 16 Georgeff (ZC 719) 2/06 SPR-addition VR-setback 3624 -house 572 -garage 400 -stable 37,120 13.7 22.2 58.6 None 39 87 Crest Rd. E. (ZC 720) 3/06 VR-setbacks 4222 -house 552- garage 69,540 13.6 34.0 31.4 None 39.7 9 Packsaddle Rd. E (ZC 725) 6/06 SPR, VR- addition, VR-setbacks, no stable 3466 -house 719 -garage 600 -pool 78,409 6.4 12.1 66.5 None 20.2 6 Sagebrush (ZC 728) 9/06 SPR-new house & grading VR-wall 5846 -house 960 -garage 3303-basemt 105,420 9.5 20.2 30.1 2546 90 (prior variance) 18 Eastfield (ZC 733) • 12/06 SPR-addition 5852 -house 1 192 -garage 450 -stable 62,471 16.4 34.3 31.7 None 48.4 (prior variance) *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 8 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2007 — Data Provided for New Homes, Major Additions Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l . Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 22 Middleridge (ZC 732) 1/07 . SPR-new house, grading VRs-disturb area & setback 4374 -house .832 -garage 2732-basemt 30,237 19.9 26.6 56.7 2054 46.3 0 Chestnut (ZC 734) 1/07 SPR-new house VR-pool 4320 -house 805 -garage 436 -pool 89,940 8.2 21.0 31.5 1174 55.0 (Legal Non con- forming) 9 Eastfield (ZC 739) 5/07 SPR-new house & grading 5000 -house 704 -garage 138,030 5.6 12.5 33.4 1230 26.3 40 Eastfield (ZC 745) 9/07 SPR-new house 4075 -house 600 -garage 2979-basemt 39,664 15.9 33.4 40 1666 39.1 9 Caballeros (ZC 737) 11/07 VR-addition setbacks 3705 -house 779 -garage 79,460 7.0 10.7 77.5 None 35.0 Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 9 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2008 - Data Provided for new Homes, Major Additions Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 3 Packsaddle (ZC 746) 1/08 SPR-new house Vrs-lightwell setback, soil export, set aside stable 6230 -house 781 -garage 4940 -basement 559 -pool 45,981 20.0 35.0 29.4 1357 plus 450 export 100 (Legal Non con - forming) 1 Acacia Ln. (ZC 749) 4/08 SPR-grading. CUP-detachd gar Vr-stable setback 4864 -house 3450 -garage 1038 -stable 77,630 14.7 20.7 20.7 622 37.7 1 Lower Blackwater Cyn (ZC 750) 4/08 SPR-addtion VR-trellis setback 4024 -house 807 -garage 119,661 6.1 11.1 58.2 None 15.8 6 Saddleback (ZC 747) 7/08 SPR-grading and new garage 4620 -house 2000 -garage 116,000 6.8 12.1 51.0 340 22.4 3 Appaloosa (ZC 757) 9/08 SPR-new house 8990 -house 2050 -garage 820 -pool 6423 -basement 357,192 3.6 7.3 30.6 300,000 (landslide repair) 18,840 for building pad 32.3 *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 10 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'l Coverage Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* % 8 Maverick (ZC 758) 10/08 SPR-addition VR-maintain non -conforming Disturbed area 7103 -house 865 -garage 800 -Guest house 1643-basemt 110,320 9.7 20.25 37.3 None 57.7 (Legal Non con - forming) 2 Appaloosa (ZC 763) 12/08 SPR-New house Min. VR•-setback 8,318 -house 669 -garage. 1,500 -stable (Existng) 179,000 8.3 18.3 21.0 None 48.0 (Legal Non con- forming) *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 11 of 12 PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 2004 to 2009 2009 -- Data Provided for New Homes, Major Additions Address Date Approved Approval Type Main structures s.f. Net Lot Area s.f. Struct'I Coverage % Total Coverage % Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading- total cubic yards Disturb. Area* 13 Outrider (ZC 768) 4/09 VR-Set aside stable/corral, with house addition 3069 -house 400 -garage 42,1.76 11.0 25.0 50.5 None 45.0 (Legal Non con- forming) 24 Cinchring Rd. (ZC 736) (ZC 769 1/07 6/09 SPR-addition, grading CUP/VR-mixed use detached structure, setback 5160 -house 1400 -mixed use structure (750 Rec rm +650 garage) 73,947 11.0 25.5 39.3 780 37.9 0 Pine Tree Ln (ZC 767) Proposed SPR-new house Vrs-disturb. area & stable in front 9885 -house •1460 -garage 450 -stable 138,081 10.4 • 21.8 29.2 12760 57.4 Public.: YOLAjVTA on Server: PC Workshop/Joint Mtgs. 2009:07-06-09 PC CC Joint Meeting: Data Collection Detailed Projects memoRL.doc *Per plan (not verified in field) Data for 2004 and 2005 includes all projects approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent years only include new homes and major additions. Page 12 of 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Members of the Planning Commission Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Open Building Permits June 29, 2009 t Enclosed, for your information is a list of construction permits issued since December 2007. There are projects under constructionin the City for which permits were issued prior to December 2007, however those permits are not on this list. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you. Page 1 of 1 O Open Permits June 2009 (NOTE: This is a list of open construction permits since December 2007 only. There are projects under construction in the City, for which permits were issued prior to Dec. 2007 but which are not listed here) Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work - Date Permit Issued 1 Acacia Ln. Lieb Building, Grading New stable and related grading 12/09/08 (Willdan Eng.) 2 Appaloosa Ln. Black Geologic Soils and geology investigation 9/15/08 3 Appaloosa Ln Foozonmehr Soils Soil report review and grading 4/30/09 Grading 1 Blackwater Cny Pluimer Soils Soils report 7/17/08 2 Buckboard Trail Adkins Plumbing Water service 4/27/09 2 Buckboard Ln. . Dkuma Spa New gunite spa 09/22/08 5 Buggy Whip , Nguyen Geotech. Building, Plumbing (Willdan) Addition, remodel and new pool 5/8/09 16 Buggy Whip Dr. " Hutchison Building, Electrical Remodel 3080 sq. ft. existing residence, 12/05/07 . Plumbing, Mechanical 855 sq. ft. addition, related electrical, plumbing, furnaces & AC pool 10/16/08 5/07/08 7/24/08 Plumbing Spa inside pool 3/26/09 16 Buggy Whip Dr. Hutchison Spa New pool and spa 05/07/08 9.Caballeros Rd. Scarboro Building Skylights/Re-roof 09/26/08 23 Caballeros Rd. LaCharite Building, Electrical addition/remodel, temp power pole, 02/14/08 Plumbing, Septic, related electrical, sewage treatment, 02/15/08 Mechanical plumbing 02/21/08 06/24/08 25 Caballeros Rd. Berenato Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing Electrical, mechanical (boiler) & plumbing for pool/patio remodel 07/17/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety Report Dec. 2007 through May 2009 Public/Open permits revJune09 1 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 5 Chesterfield Rd. Schmidt Building, Electrical, 995 sq ft addition, related temp power 08/22/08 Plumbing pole, plumbing, and retaining wall 9/26/08 10/14/08 0 Chestnut Ln. Meidl Building, Electrical, New SFR, related temp power, electrical, 08/28/08 Mechanical, Plumbing mechanical, plumbing 12/13/07 5 Chestnut Ln. Spellberg Building, Septic Re -roof, install sewage treatment system 09/15/08 10/20/08 1 Crest Rd. E. Huh Building, Grading, Extensive remodel and addition, grading, 07/0708 Plumbing, Septic related plumbing and sewage treatment- 05/28/08 enhanced 10/02/08 • 05/08/08 • t 10/14/08 10/16/08 2 Crest Rd. W. Leake Building Replace windows 10/15/08 5 Crest Rd. W. Soderstrom Pool, Building Remodel pool, water features 02/12/08 Mechanical Pool eqipm 2/2/09 7 Crest Rd. W. Henke Mechanical Replace FAU 12/6/08 26 Crest Rd E. Hadley Plumbing Replace gas line 11/06/08 67 Crest Rd. East Goldstein Building Convert garage to living area and add new garage 6/19/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety Report Dec. 2007 through May 2009 Public/Open permits_revJune09 2 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 87 Crest Rd. E. Steinberg Pool Remodel pool 08/28/08 3 Eastfield Bennett Roof Repair roof 1/7/09 9 Eastfield Dr. Margolis Septic, Electrical, New SFR, remodel stable, Sewage 06/05/08 Building treatment and electrical 07/22/08 08/01/08 12 Eastfield Dr. Itoh Building, Plumbing Addition and remodel, plumbing 06/23/08 Doors, windows 08/04/08 Permits expired; then reissued 11/26/08 1/21/09 25 Eastfield Baumann Electrical Solar panels 4/9/09 45 Eastfield Dr. Thomas Building, Extensive remodel & addition, basement, 03/12/08 Mechanical, and related plumbing and ductwork 10/03/08 Plumbing 08/06/08 Building Porte Cochere 12/04/08 75 Eastfield Dr. Towle Building, Electrical, Add 47 sq. ft. to kitchen, related 04/08/08 Mechanical, Plumbing electrical, mechanical, plumbing 05/29/08 4 El Concho Zee Building Reconstruct deck 1/14/09 15 Georgeff Keegan Geology report Soils/geology for new pool 1.0/28/08 16 Georgeff Rd. Beilke Swim pool, grading Pool/spa, grading for play area 04/02/08 03/24/08 Retaining wall for play area 4/23/09 25 Georgeff Rd. Argarwal Building Re -roof 11/20/08 Electrical .Electrical 4/29/09 27 Georgeff Rd. Hsu Building, Electrical, 514 sq. ft. addition & related electrical, 02/22/08 Plumbing, Septic, mechanical, plumbing, sewage treatment 6/16/08 mechanical system 4/14/08 7 Maverick Ln. Howroyd Building Retaining walls/caissons 6/26/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety Report Dec. 2007 through May 2009 Public/Open permits_revJune09 3 Address Name : Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 8 Maverick Karpf,, Geology Soils, geology for major addition . 3/24/09 3 Morgan Lane -Douglas Grading Building Tennis Court Wall for tennis court 2/26/09 3 Middleridge Ln. MacLeod Building, Electrical 729 sq. ft. barn/loft, related electrical 12/7/07 4 Openbrand Rd. Lucas Swim Pool, building, plumbing Remodel pool, add spa, including plumbing, fireplace 02/12/08 5/14/08 6 Outrider Wachs Electrical Electrical for bath remodel 9/5/08 8 Outrider Rd. Resich Building Addition, with w/cellar, storage basement 07/22/08 9 Packsaddle Rd. E. Negri Grading, Building (Willdan) Addition (987 sq. ft); related grading Septic tank -enhanced 12/09/08 13 Outrider Joo Misc. Replastering pool 3/4/09 2 Pine Tree Ln. Riedyk Building Interior & exterior remodel & new patio 11/19/08 2 Pheasant Ln Askari Builidng Repair pool and caissons 12/19/08 17 Portuguese Bend Road Kim Electrical Underground Utility lines 4/13/09 18 Portuguese Bend Road Vinyard Bank Building Walls for utility panels in the easement 2/17/09 26 Portuguese Bend Rd. Johnson Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbg Interior refurbishment & related electric and HVAC, gas line 06/20/08 05/13/08 25 Portuguese Bend Rd. Cho Building New stable 4/23/09 40 Portuguese Bend Rd. Su Pool, Electrical New pool/spa, related electric 04/09/08 10 Possum Ridge Bates Grading Building Barn w/loft 2/5/09 7 Roundup Rd. Nuccion Mechanical Change out water heater 3/24/09 4 Running Brand Petersen Mechanical Change out water heater 2/4/09 50 Saddleback Rd. Prodomides Mechanical New heating and cooling units 06/20/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety Report Dec. 2007 through May 2009 Public/Open permits_revJune09 4 Address Name Permit Type Nature of Work Date Permit Issued 6 Sagebrush Ln. Mao Building, Septic New SFR & sewage treatment system 08/11/08 Trellis, pool & spa 1/16/09 11 Southfield Dr. Kirkpatrick Septic, Building New pool & related electric, plumbing, 05/14/08 Mechanical, Pool new solar power systems, new AC, 08/27/08 Plumbing change applicant -contractor to owner 04/15/08 (septic only) 12 Southfield Dr. Patel Building, Plumbing New SFR, related electrical, plumbing, 3/05/08 Electrical, Mechanical, Septic mechanical, sewage treatment system- enhanced 5/30/08 Data based on LACO Building and Safety Report Dec. 2007 through May 2009 Public/Open perinits_revJune09 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Honorable Mayor and City Council Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager 4/2 July 6 Meeting Agenda and Materials June 26, 2009 Enclosed, for your reference and review are the agenda and. back-up materials for the July 6, 2009 meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission with the Focus Group. Background In January 2009, the Focus Group presented observations and recommendations to the City Council following a year -long discussion on "development" topics. In response to the input, the City Council directed staff to schedule a meeting for the City Council and Planning Commission with the Focus Group to discuss those topics directly related td planning and development. Subsequently, as the meeting was being scheduled, additional topics were added to the agenda at the request of the City Council and Planning Commission. Items 1-5 on the agenda were generated from the Focus Group. Item 6 was added by the City Council. Items 7 and 8 are from the Planning Commission, resulting from recent discussions and incidents related construction activity in the City. As you will note, the topics are complex, substantial and overlap in some areas. It may be difficult to address each topic individually because issues relate to one another. As a result, it may be necessary to schedule one or two more meetings to complete the entire agenda. Discussion The City Council/Planning Commission discussion is to determine if there is interest in making changes in the current rules or guidelines relative to planning and development and to review the associated policy direction and administrative direction of the Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission and staff, respectively. As an outcome of the meeting, the Planning Commission and/or staff will be potentially tasked with developing recommendations consistent with the direction received from the City Council. Conclusion Attached to this memorandum, for reference, is a copy of the original recommendations of the Focus Group as presented to the City Council and the Focus Group participants/distribution list. The Focus Group has been invited to attend the City Council and Planning Commission meeting and contribute to the discussion. TD:hl Public: YOLANTA on Server:PC Workshop/Joint Mtgs. 2009:07-06-09 PC CC Joint Meeting:PC CC mtg cover,nemo.doc Page 2 of 2 City Managers Focus Group Participants/Distribution List Mr. Donovan Mr. Zan Mr. Brad Ms. Pam Mr. Fred Dr. Lynn Mrs. Diana Mr. Marc Mrs. Kathleen Mr. Major Mr. Matthew Mrs. Lisa Dr. Mark Mrs. Leah Dr. Fred Ms. Cathy Mrs. Maureen Mr. Jeff Mr. Vukan Mr. Roger Mr. Brett Black Calhoun Chel f Crane Dellovade Gill Howard lacobowitz KrauthaiLer Langer McConaughy McCullough-Pinci Minkes Mirsch Mishkin Nichols Nunn Pieper Ruzic Sommer Zane , 39 Chuckwagon Road 63 Eastfield Drive 59 Crest Road East 10 Caballeros Road 11 Middleridge Lane North 31 Chuckwagon Road 85 Eastfield Drive 20 Portuguese Bend Road 41 Crest Road West 6 Possum Ridge Road 15 Middleridge Lane North 22 Middleridge Lane North 44 Chuckwagon Road 4 Cinchring Road 1 Flying Mane Road 14 Crest Road West 1 crest Road West 3 Eucalyptus Lane 5 Lower Blackwater Canyon. Road 8 Georgeff Road 15 Wideloop Road Updated 6/26/09, 8:35 AM Agenda Item No.: 8-B Mtg. Date: 01/26/09 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ANTON DAHLE•RB.RUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: FOCUS GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS DATE: JANUARY 26, 2009 RECOMIVI[ENDA T'ION The Focus Group asks the City Council to consider its recommendations and observations for evaluation. and implementation. While some of their comments relate directly to staff, others are appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider. The City Council may want to consider the recommendations for fiscal year 2009/10 or within a multi -year planning effort, request the Planning Commission review some of the ideas, direct the City Manager to implement select recommendations and/or create a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to further explore the recommendations. BACKGROUND In January 2008, the City Manager established a "focus group" to discuss with interested residents various issues and topics being addressed by City staff. The first and primary matter of discussion since then was the development process and in particular, ways to improve it. In May 2008, the Focus Group presented to the City Council its' initial recommendation and observations on development. In response to feedback from the City Council, the Focus Group reconvened over several months to further refine and define its thoughts. The City Council asked that the Focus Group elaborate their justification for the recommendations. The outcome of this effort is attached in three sections entitled process; transparency and rules. DISCUSSION The Focus .Group has a distribution list of 20 residents who are invited to each meeting. Attendance ranges, on average from 4 to 15 people. As such, the recommendations and observations contained in the attached documents do not necessarily reflect all Focus Group participants. They represent the consensus of members who have participated in meetings. The Focus Group's recommendations in regard to development are not intended to change the development review and approval process. Instead, they are intended to "fine tune" a process that they are generally pleased with, now that they have a better understanding of the process. The improved understanding appears to be the result of individuals having been through she development process, learning from the City through Focus Group meetings and dialoguing with other residents about opinions and perspectives. NOTIFICATION Members of the Focus Group and the Planning Commission have been advised of this matter on the City Council agenda. CONCLUSION • Among the recommendations, the suggestions for "transparency" are related to administrative processes and ca.n be directed to the City Manager for prioritizing and implementing into work plans. The suggestions for "rules" and "process" are most directly related to zoning and building codes and thus, it would be appropriate to direct them to the Planning Commission for review and evaluation. As an outcome of the dialogue, it is clear that the Focus Group does not want to change the nature or character of R.olling Hills. Their recommendations are for improvements and adjustments in response to the uniqueness of the community or historical activities of the City with the goal of preserving what exists. AD:h1 Process Problem Statement: In the review and approval of development applications, there can be confusion, repetition, high costs and non -value added processes. To address these issues, the Focus Group finds and recommends the following: 1. Staff authority for minor improvements Projects receiving site plan review, from time to time, are designated as requiring Planning Commission review for any and all improvements on the property. This requirement applies to minor improvements such as the addition of a trellis to major construction such as an addition to a house. Besides the cost of going through site plan review process for such improvements, it also takes time — at least two months — for Planning Commission review before the matter is heard by the City Council. Recommendation #1: Within certain parameters, the Focus Group recommends the City provide staff with authority to approve minor improvements that have an insignificant affect on the property. It is recommended that administrative (staff) approval be authorized if the additional development is minor, not impactfiil and reasonable, (e.g. barbecue, fire place, trellis). Staff input for Planning Conrt:iission presentations Upon receipt of an application, Rolling Hills' staff spends considerable time to review and evaluate a project for conformance with the City's zoning requirements and holds several meetings with the applicant and/or agent, before the project is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission meeting, in contrast to practices in other cities, Rolling Hills' staff will present a detailed overview of the project without providing specific direction or a recommendation on a course of action. In other cities, after spending significant time with an applicant analyzing a proposed project and addressing associated issues, staff will develop and present a recommendation on the proposed project to the Planning Commission. The Focus Group supports the current practice and approach of Rolling Hills' staff because it leaves all discretion to the Planning Commission. In Rolling Hills, staff remains neutral in the process, does not wield power or control over the outcome of an application and there is no appearance of staff partisanship. It is the opinion of the Focus Group that Rolling Hills' staff should continue to only provide guidance, information and advice to applicants in advance of submitting its proposal. Recommendation #2: Staff should continue its past practice; staff should not make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Rather, staff should identify to an applicant what is necessary to submit an application. for Planning Commission approval and provide factual information to the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 3 3. Public input process The Focus Group believes that public hearings do not generate sufficient public interest or engagement in important City decisions. Therefore, with a goal of gaining broad community input on matters, to determine resident's point of view on issues, the, focus group believes that the City could enhance information sharing and input gathering strategies. Moreover, because. Rolling Hills is unique with its small population, the Focus Group believes that the additional effort to communicate directly with residents could be accomplished for a relatively small amount of money. The Focus Group believes that the cost of conducting surveys and information sharing is a wise use of City funds. The Focus group encourages the City's use of surveys (e.g., electronically or in hard copy) to collect resident input and greater use of the City's bi-weekly newsletter to educate residents about matters before the City Council and Commissions. The Focus Group suggests that the City disseminate surveys periodically on a subject -specific basis or disseminate surveys on a regular schedule (e.g., two-times a year) on multiple topics. Volunteers (e.g., the Women's Community Club) may be available to assist in tallying survey results. It was noted by the Focus Group that it would be important to share the survey results with the community. Recommendation #3: With the many important decisions addressed by the Planning Commission and City Council related to planning issues and the character of the City (e.g., outdoor lighting and development standards), the Focus Group recommends extended public outreach such as opinion surveys and increased newsletter notifications to obtain resident input into the review, discussion and approval of City matters. 4. Streamlining the Planning Commission review process Typically for Planning Commission review, it takes a minimum of three (3) months and three (3) meetings. The first meeting sets a field trip. The second meeting is a field trip and subsequent discussion. The third meeting is when the Commission takes action. A subsequent fourth meeting is then held for the City Council to consider the application. During this timeframe, the applicant silhouettes the proposed project and working through their architect and engineer, responds to questions and recommendations of the Planning Commission and possibly the City Council. Questions or issues with the project could extend the timeframe. Sometimes, multiple silhouettes are necessary if the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the proposed project. The first two (2) meetings of the Planning Commission are noticed as public hearings although minimal dialogue generally takes place at the first meeting. At the first meeting, staff typically describes and gives an overview of the project and a field trip is scheduled. Page 2 of 3 The Focus Group feels there can be ways to streamline the project review process so it is quicker and to save costs for the applicant. Recommendation #4: The Focus Group recomrnends that with a simple, non -controversial project, the applicant have an option of holding the first meeting of the Planning Commission as the field trip to view the Silhouette instead of the first meeting in the Council Chambers for the Planning Commission to review the project and schedule a subsequent field trip. If the first meeting of the Planning Commission is the field trip, the Focus Group believes the project could be reviewed and approved within two (2) meetings rather than the usual three (3) meetings. For cases reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to scheduling a field trip, it is the Focus Group's recommendation that the first meeting be a substantive review of the proposed project. A substantive review would be intended to identify for the applicant the most obvious concerns of the Planning Commission and highlight particular elements of the application (although not all) that the Planning Commission will be evaluating in the field. The Focus Group believes that this would provide the applicant with advance information to reconsider the request and/or make modifications to the plans before incurring more expenses such as, building a silhouette for a structure that the Planning Commission anticipates will be too tall. It is believed by the Focus Group that the upfront discussion will streamline the review of project for the remainder of the process. 5. Providing the City Council with complete information For the Planning Commission to approve of a project, it generally takes a minimum of three meeting. Over the course of the meetings, there is substantial discussion of the project. While the "findings" in the Planning Commission's "Resolution of Approval" capture the reasoning for the Planning Commission's action, the findings may not convey the depth of discussions and questions in the dialogue on the case. The findings also may not address modifications to the project that resulted from the dialogue. The City Council, in turn, may not understand or appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts in coming to its recommendations. Recommendation #5: The Planning Commission should provide the City Council with a thorough explanation of their dialogue and conclusions when a project is considered by the City Council for approval. For complex projects, the Focus Group recommends a Planning Commission/City Council Liaison meeting to explain the details of the project or a Planning Commission representative to attend the City Council meeting to represent the Planning Commission's views. Page 3 of 3 Rules Problems Statement: The formulas that regulate the amount of coverage, amount of dfsiurbance, setback requirements and building pad coverage can he limiting to property owners seeking to replace an existing small home located on a small lot and therefore, inhibit the replacement of older housing stock in particular neighborhoods. 1. Allow for the export of dirt (completed). This matter is no longer an issue because in the City's building code adopted in January 2008, the topic was addressed and resolved. The City's building code had prohibited the export of dirt without the approval of the City Manager in special circumstances or without the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council with a Variance. Without an exception to prohibition, excavated dirt would need to be spread across the property. This particularly became an issue as more and more, bigger and bigger basements were constructed. The excavated dirt, spread across the site, would result in disturbing and changing the natural terrain. This would be in direct contradiction to the City's goal of maintaining and preserving the natural terrain. Recommendation #1: This matter was addressed by the City Council's adoption of the new building code in January 2008. In adoption of the new building code, the City now allows for the e:port of dirt generated from the excavation of basements. By allowing for the export of dirt, developers will not need to spread the dirt on the property and will more easily be able to maintain the natural terrain. Moreover, by permitting the export of dirt, the dirt will not be retained on the property for enlarging a building pad. 2. Maintaining the footprint of the old house when replacing the house. There are homes in certain areas of the City (e.g., on Eastfield, Drive, Chuckwagon Road and Williamsburg Lane) where the existing homes are within the building setbacks. Many of the homes were built prior to the establishment of the existing requirement for setbacks and therefore, they are not in conformance with current development standards. Based on the small size and configuration of these particular lots, the same home that exists today, rebuilt, would necessitate a variety of variances from the City or, they would need to be smaller. Some of these homes are older housing stock and not only likely to be torn -down and replaced at sometime in the future, should he torn -down and replaced — even they are no bigger or different from the original house. Because there is value to the community to replace old housing with newer buildings (e.g., for both living comfort of the owner and to meet current building standards), the Focus Group does not feel there should be obstacles or barriers to Page 1 of 4 May 27, 2008 replacing an existing home. However, currently, variances would uniformly be needed for each home to be rebuilt at the same size and in their same location. Therefore, the Focus Group is suggesting that property owners be enabled to build the same house on the same footprint and as such, the zoning rules be adjusted in the particular neighborhoods where there are small homes on small lots and the homes preceded today's building setback requirements. Recommendation #2: It is recommended by the .Focus Group that the City reduce its setback requirements in designated areas of the City to enable homeowners to rebuild their existing house within the same footprint. The designated areas represent neighborhoods where there are small lots and small homes that are located in setbacks that were established after the homes were built and locations where replacing the same size home is currently not possible due to the existing setback requirements. The setback requirements should be changed in areas of the City where variances for rebuilding the same house would routinely be necessary (the norm). It is further recommended that such projects be subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission where the Commission can assess and address other options for the location of the replacement home. 3. Minimum size residence For existing ]tomes, regardless of size, additions are permitted with "over the counter approval" every three years in the amount of 999 square feet or 25% of the existing house, which ever is greater. It is theopinion of the Focus Group that these rules encourage piecemeal expansion rather than a comprehensive, thought- out rebuilding of a home when, a) in reality, an old home should be rebuilt from scratch or b) the cost of the property pushes a new property owner to maximize his/her space. The Focus Group feels that residents should be supported in their efforts build a minimum or adequate size home rather than opt to add-on to older homes because it is simpler or less complicated. The Focus Group does not support the amount of grading currently possible en a lot in order to build an adequate size home. The Focus Group would like to minimize the amount of grading on a lot to .1) support the appropriate size home, 2) maintain as much natural terrain as possible in keeping with the character of Rolling .Hills and 3) just provide enough building pad to allow someone to waik around the home. Finally, there is no interest among the Focus Group members to mansionize homes, build homes close to each other, or over develop a lot. In combining these three factors, the Focus Group believes that the Pad Coverage guideline is problematic. It is felt that the guideline is applied as a rule more than a guideline and it encourages property owners to maximize the amount of grading on a lot rather than minimize the pad within the natural landscape. By Page 2 of 4 May 27, 2008 encouraging a large pad size, a bigger house is built and/or efforts are not made to build the home and amenities along the terrain. The Focus Group discussed that a small home may be about 2,800 square feet in size. With the property owner allowed a 999 square foot addition automatically, a small home may technically be equivalent to approximately 3,800. In turn, the Focus Group concluded that the Pad Coverage guideline should limit grading to enough pad to accommodate this small size home with space to walk around the home. Moreover, it is the Focus Group's opinion that such a minimum size home should be allowed in the City without major variances to encourage new homes in replacement of old homes with additions. Recommendation #3: Members of the Focus Group recommend that the Pad. Coverage guideline be replaced with a new formula that bases the size of an allowable hotne to the size of the net lot. In other words, there should be a mathematical percentage for the size of a home in relation to the net lot area. The pad size, in turn, should accommodate the size of the home allowed or desired by the property owner. The home should also have an area (e.g., 10 feet) to walk unobstructed around the house. In turn, it would be the Planning Commission's role to ensure that the new, proposed home is not massive, bulky, overpowering, etc. for the lot and its location on the lot. Members of the Focus Group recommend that the City evaluate this recommendation and consider the size of older homes in the City and then, develop the new formula for a minimum size home and resulting building pad. 4. Geological exploration Currently, the City approves geological exploration "over the counter" with a letter of intent and explanation of the project from a property owner or his/her representative. The information received is general in nature; it establishes the fact that geological exploration is going to take place. The City, in turn, is not necessary informed of the extent of the exploration, the timeframe, the grading that will take place, etc. The Focus Group feels that the City should receive more information from the property owner/representative so it is completely clear and knowledgeable on the activities. The Focus Group also feels that geological exploration should have a time limit for completion in order that a site is not exposed indefinitely. Recommendatiol #4: The Focus Group recommends that the City require more detail than currently submitted when a resident conducts geological exploration. The detail is to know (and monitor) the project if something more that geological exploration takes place at the exploration site (e.g., unnecessary grading). Such a new requirement would also require that the City be informed if there is a divergence frorn the submitted plan. No special permit, Planning Page 3 of 4 May 27, 200S Commission review or fee would be required but upon notice to the City of geological exploration, the Focus Group feels it should be completed within 5 years. Page 4 of 4 May 27, 2005 Transparency Problem Statement: The development process, for property owners, developer teams, real estate professionals, should allow. for easy, personal, on -demand access to accurate, consistent, and specific information. Information shou.d be available that enlightens the public on the City's development requirements and demystifies the development processes. While recognizing that it is the responsibility of property owners, developer teams, real estate professionals to understand the City's rules, requirements and processes and conform to them, the Focus Group proposes the following recommendations to increase the transparency of the development process: 1. Los Angeles County permit, plan review and inspection fees Fees charged by Los Angeles County or the City's consulting engineers for building plan review, permitting and inspection, after an applicant pays fees to the City for its reviews, can be expensive and a surprise to an applicant. So the total fees do not surprise a property owner, it is recommended that the applicant ascertain the amount of fees for the entire project before the initial application is submitted. Recommendation #1: At the outset of the development process, the Focus Group recommends that the City direct the applicant: to the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, Lomita Office, to determine the full cost of plan check and permitting fees. 2. Dissemination of information. about permit, plan review and inspection fees by Los Angeles County Representatives at the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety in the Lomita Office reportedly do not sufficiently explain or represent the City's fees for plan review, plan check and inspection. Focus Group members related stories that when County staff understood the applicant was building in Rolling Hills, they conveyed that the fees were higher than neighboring Rolling Hills Estates and unincorporated areas. As such, property owners and developers hear a bias in the higher cost of services for Rolling Hills without being informed of the higher service levels provided. Recommendation #2: It is recommended that the City work with the County to improve their delivery of information about fees for development in Rolling Hills. .Note: A user fee analysis was initiated by the City unrelated to this recommendation to evaluate planning, permitting, building and inspection fees charged by the City. Results from the analysis for modification of fees will be presented to the City Council for consideration with the fiscal year budget. 3. Written, public information about the development process Page 1 of 5 August 4, 2008 The Focus Group observed that the written information available to property owners interested in development is only available at City Hall in the form of a flyer and the amount of written information is somewhat limited and technical. Recognizing that some property owners • would rather read information that pertains to the development process over having a conversation with a City staff person and!or would like to have read material before having a discussion with a City representative, the Focus Group recommends the City create add tional, easily rea.dable, information for the public. With such information available, the Focus Group believes that property owners may not inadvertently violate regulations or avoid talking with the City. Recommend at.ion #3: The City should prepare additional, reader -friendly information. that is made available to property owners so they can become educated about the development process before they begin the process. 4. Preliminary meetings with the City It was noted by the Focus Group that development limits and rules might not be accurately conveyed from the City to a property owner through the proper own.er's representative over the course of a development project. When this occurs, an adversarial relationship can develop between the City and property owner that could have been avoidable if the City representative and property owner had initially talked directly with each other. The Focus Group believes that property owners and the City should talk directly, at least at the outset of the development process to establish a relationship for communication, explain. the development process and to share important information. Recommendation #4: The City should strongly encourage that a property owner participate in the first meeting with the City to talk about proposed irn.provement plans. in subsequent meetings, the property owner may have a representative in his/her place. 5. Role of City and Rolling Hills Community Association in the development process Regardless of an individual's length of residency in the City, the distinct roles and responsibilities of the City and Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) are confusing the residents. Residents, developers and real estate agents are often unclear that the City's approval process and requirements for development is different than the RHCA's approval process and requirements. The processes and requirements of both independent organizations are separate. The Focus Group also feels that it is not clear to the public when a building permit is needed for a project or why is it necessary for the City or RHCA to review and approve a project. Therefore, the Focus Group believes that clear and detailed information Page 2 of 5 August 4, 2008 for the public regarding the roses and responsibilities of both organizations is needed. Recommendation #5 The City should develop and publish information and diagrams (e.g., in hard copy, on the webpage, etc.) that specify its' review and approval requirements for projects and which require building permits. 6. 'website The Focus Group believes that the City needs a better website that has more information available to residents. The Internet is increasingly used for obtai.ninCr and disseminating information and for some people, the main source of information and communication. Information posted on a website is available to the public 24/7 and can simply be updated to provide the public with the most current data. The Focus Group believes that much of the development information discussed and presented in Focus Group meetings would be valuable to post on the website. It was also suggested that the City's website should explain to an applicant / resident all the components of the development process and all the options / matters to take into consideration when submitting plans (e.g., to make sure that nothing is left out on the plans being reviewed by the Planning Commission). Further, it was stated that the website should explain, generically, the options available to the Planning Commission when considerinY a project (e.g., the Planning Commission may apply a requirement that all future development on the property require Planning Commission review and approval). Recommendation #6 Even if the website initially said "under construction," the City should begin creating a new, more informative website sooner than later. Note: A new website has been implementers since this recommendation was developed; it is being updated with information as tinge permits (1/6/09). 7. Graphic flowchart to illustrate the development process As a visual tool to explain and illustrate the development process to the public, the Focus Group supports the creation and distribution of two graphic flow charts. One should provide a step-by-step overview of the site plan review and approval process through the Planning Commission and the other should provide the "over the counter" process for project approval. It is the opinion of the Focus Group that a flow chart is more descriptive and understandable than a narrative of the processes. The Focus Group recommends that each box within the flow chart detail the timeframe, cost, responsibility, rules, contact person and additional matters to consider of that step in the process. They recommend that the flow charts be posted on the City's website as well as rnade available at City Hall. Page 3 of 5 August 4, 2008 Recommendation #7: City staff provided a draft flow chart to the Focus Group for review and discussion. It is recommended that the City finalize the flow chart and make it available to the public on the website and at City Hall. 8. Disseminating information to residents In the variety of topics discussed at the Focus Group meetings, there is information being shared and learned that Focus Group members feel may be of interest to other members of the community. The Focus Group feels that it would be good to disseminate this information to a broader audience for everyone's benefit because it is relevant to living within the City. Information about the development process, solid waste collection, low pressure sewer, undergrounding, emergency preparedness, etc. are all topic matters that the Focus Group feels is irnportant for everyone to hear. The information shared with residents should be well structured and conveyed in a positive tone. Recommendation #8: The Focus Group feels that it would be beneficial to have an annual community meeting and/or continue to participate in the neighborhood meetings sponsored by the Wornen'.s Community Club. Because the annual Rolling Hills Community Association meeting is for Association business and the time.available to the City at their meetings is limited, the Focus Group recornm.ends the City consider hosting its' own annual meeting to share information with the community. 9. Connection and communication with Real Estate agents \\'hen considering the purchase of a house in Rolling Hills, a prospective resident may not know the development regulations on the particular property or understand the constraints/goals encompassed within the City's General Plan and Zonin.g Code. A prospective resident may not be aware of a non -conforming use or structure on the property and, Real Estate agents and the sellers may not know or tell the prospective buyer. Therefore, a new property owner may learn of development limits or non -conforming structures on their property when applying for development approval. Because of this, the development process may start in an adversarial mariner when the property owner meets with the City for approval to make building improvements. City staff communicates with Real Estate agents through an annual breakfast meeting and periodic guest lectures at training classes. Despite this outreach, it appears to the City that prospective buyers generally don't learn of the City's requirements before making their purchase. Recommendation #9: The Focus Group recomrnends that the City develop a formai method of informing prospective residents of the conditions and limitations of development within the City. Page 4 of 5 August 4, 2008 10. The purpose of development plan review When the City reviews a proposed construction project, the Focus Group feels that it is generally not clear to the property owner the motivation for the City's review of a project or, in other words, the purpose of the City's evaluation of the request. For example, it may not be clear to property owners when a project is being reviewed to simply assure the structure is not in the setback or if the structure fits within the allowable lot coverage. Moreover, it may not be clear to a property owner what type of construction activity necessitates a site plan review, "over the counter approval" or just a building permit. Recommendation #10: In concert with other information the City develops to educate the public about its development standards and requirements, the City should explain the purpose of its review. The Focus Group believes that property owners should be provided the information to know the purpose for the City's review of a project and in turn, the property owner will better understand the process. Page 5 of 5 August 4, 2008